ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant.Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David E.A. Crowley of counsel), for respondent.
ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered April 9, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to concurrent terms of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.
By limiting courtroom closure solely to the duration of the trial testimony of two undercover police officers, and by noting that it would separately consider opening the proceeding to defendant's family members if any requested access to the courtroom during the period of closure, the trial court discharged its duty to consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding ( see Presley v. Georgia, ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 721, 724, 175 L.Ed.2d 675 [2010]; People v. Mickens, 82 A.D.3d 430, 917 N.Y.S.2d 630 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 798, 929 N.Y.S.2d 106, 952 N.E.2d 1101 [2011]; People v. Manning, 78 A.D.3d 585, 586, 912 N.Y.S.2d 183 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 861, 923 N.Y.S.2d 422, 947 N.E.2d 1201 [2011], cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 2011 WL 4534895, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5278 [Oct. 3, 2011] ).
The court's charge on the agency defense adequately conveyed the appropriate principles ( see People v. Job, 87 N.Y.2d 956, 641 N.Y.S.2d 589, 664 N.E.2d 500 [1996]; People v. Pratt, 39 A.D.3d 315, 834 N.Y.S.2d 130 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 849, 840 N.Y.S.2d 776, 872 N.E.2d 889 [2007] ). The court was not obligated to include all the language contained in the Criminal Jury Instructions ( see People v. Ladson, 41 A.D.3d 248, 249, 839 N.Y.S.2d 28 [2009], lv. denied
9 N.Y.3d 877, 842 N.Y.S.2d 789, 874 N.E.2d 756 [2007] ), and nothing in the charge as given can be viewed as directing a verdict. In any event, defendant's own testimony negated his agency defense in that he admitted that his desire to obtain drugs as compensation for arranging the transaction was not incidental, but was his sole motivation ( see People v. Sanchez, 35 A.D.3d 161, 825 N.Y.S.2d 460 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 949, 836 N.Y.S.2d 560, 868 N.E.2d 243 [2009] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.