The People made a sufficient showing to warrant closure of the courtroom to the general public, including defendant's drug counselor, during the testimony of two undercover officers. The drug counselor was not a member of defendant's family, and his relationship with defendant was too remote to warrant any type of a heightened showing with regard to his exclusion ( see People v. DeJesus, 305 A.D.2d 170).
The challenged portions of the People's summation generally constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in response to defense arguments, and the summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884). While the phrasing of some of these remarks may have been inappropriate, the court's curative actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.