PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt as to that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant's behavior "purposefully affected or furthered the sale of the controlled substance", and that he was not merely acting as an agent of the buyer (People v. Bello, 92 N.Y.2d 523, 526; see, People v. Page, 260 A.D.2d 153).

The testimony of the confidential informant that the defendant was his boss in a drug operation before the commission of the crimes charged in the indictment was properly admitted to establish his credibility (see, People v. Green, 35 N.Y.2d 437). Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly instructed the jury, both at the conclusion of the confidential informant's testimony and in its charge, regarding the limited role to be assigned to the testimony (see, People v. Syshawn, 200 A.D.2d 778).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's determination to close the courtroom was proper, in light of the concern for the safety of the testifying undercover officer (see, People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied 522 U.S. 1002).

The fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations does not indicate that the defendant was penalized for asserting his right to proceed to trial (see, People v. Durkin, 132 A.D.2d 668; People v. Bellilli, 270 A.D.2d 355).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.