[*1]
People v M.B.
2004 NY Slip Op 51556(U)
Decided on December 9, 2004
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected in part through April 26, 2021; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on December 9, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
2003-893 Q CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

M.B., Appellant.


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Queens County (M. Aloise, J.), rendered on March 3, 2003, convicting her of attempted sexual abuse in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.60 [2]) and attempted endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 260.10 [1]), and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant's contention on appeal, she was not denied a fair trial by the court's failure to grant her motion to exclude the child-witness's father from the courtroom while the child testified. The defendant failed to establish an overriding interest that would likely be prejudiced if closure of the courtroom to the father was not ordered (see Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39, 48 [1984]; People v Nieves, 90 NY2d 426 [1997]). Closure of the courtroom during a criminal trial must be sparingly exercised and, then, only when unusual circumstances necessitate it (People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409, 413 [1979]; People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, 76 [1972]). In the case at bar, there were no unusual circumstances presented by defendant warranting the relief requested.
Decision Date: December 09, 2004