ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's denial of the defendant's request for a mistrial was a provident exercise of discretion (see People v. Young, 48 N.Y.2d 995, 996; People v. Hayden, 221 A.D.2d 367, 368). Whether to grant a request for a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see People v. Ortiz, 54 N.Y.2d 288, 292), which is in the best position to determine if it is necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial (see People v. Cooper, 173 A.D.2d 551, 552). Here, the arresting officer testified that he gave the defendant Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436), which contradicted the officer's own pretrial Huntley hearing testimony (see People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72) wherein he stated that he did not give the defendant the warnings. However, the defendant's request for a mistrial came after the court had already agreed to strike the officer's testimony regarding the defendant's statement and give an immediate curative instruction. This was sufficient to protect the defendant's rights (see People v. Hayden, supra, at 368; see also People v. Dutcher, 244 A.D.2d 499, 500).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to a public trial because a screen was placed in front of the testifying undercover officer to prevent the defendant's family members from identifying him. When the undercover officer entered the courtroom, he alerted the prosecutor that he recognized one of the defendant's sisters and another person and he testified that he would be very concerned if these spectators were to see him. The undercover officer also testified that he was involved in long-term operations in the location where the defendant was arrested and overlapping areas, he had ongoing cases where subjects were still at large, and he had 9 or 10 cases pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County (see People v. Rodriguez, 258 A.D.2d 483; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). Thus, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in utilizing a screen during the testimony of the undercover officer as an alternative to closure of the courtroom. The screen was placed in front of the undercover officer, and the defendant's family members were allowed to remain in the courtroom during the officer's testimony (see People v. Rodriguez, supra; People v. Rivera, 237 A.D.2d 178). Accordingly, the defendant was not deprived of his right to a public trial.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and McGINITY, JJ., concur.