Defendant, assisted by the codefendant, sold two vials of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. The undercover immediately radioed a description of the sellers to her backup team, and within minutes they were arrested. Additional crack cocaine as well as the prerecorded buy money were found in the codefendant's possession.
We reject defendant's contention that the trial evidence did not show a chain of custody sufficient to permit the introduction into evidence of the drugs taken from the codefendant. The identity of the drugs and their unchanged condition were sufficiently established. The presence of broken glass in the exhibit was adequately explained by the fact that crack pipes were also seized at the time of the arrest and placed in the envelope with the crack cocaine. There was no indication that this glass came from a foreign object or other suggestion of tampering. Any deficiency in the proof concerning chain of custody went to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility (People v Piazza, 121 A.D.2d 573, 574, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 916).
We also reject defendant's argument that the trial court improperly ordered closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony. At a Hinton hearing (People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the undercover testified that she was still actively engaged in undercover buys at the same location and would be so assigned in the future, and that she therefore feared for her life if she were to testify in open court. Under such circumstances, we have consistently held that closure of the courtroom during an undercover police officer's testimony is proper. (People v Okonkwo, 176 A.D.2d 163, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 862; People v Santos, 154 A.D.2d 284, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 817.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.