Contrary to defendant's contention, the trial court, in itsSandoval ruling, properly balanced the probative value of defendant's 1992 conviction for attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree against its potential for undue prejudice (see, People v. Pena, 251 A.D.2d 26, 35, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 929).
Also proper under the circumstances was the trial court's posting of a court officer outside the courtroom door with instructions to notify the court if anyone wished to enter. Such screening of potential spectators did not a constitute a closure of the courtroom (People v. Carillo, 267 A.D.2d 43).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.