trial. The same reasons that led the court to call so- many extra jurors should have prompted it to consider accommodations for some members of the public to attend. The court does not have to accommodate every person who wants to attend a trial. It does not have to relocate a trial to a sports stadium. It ought to consider use of the largest available courtroom. It must consider options for reserving some seating in the courtroom for interested members of the public, even if that meáns potential jurors are divided into separate groups. Compare People v. Floyd, 21 N.Y.3d 892, 965 N.Y.S.2d 770, 988 N.E.2d 505, 506-07 (N.Y. 2013) (“Mere courtroom overcrowding is not an overriding interest justifying courtroom closure.”) with People v. Rush, 148 A.D.3d 1601, 51 N.Y.S.3d 290, 293 (2017) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 35] We may leave for another day the
holding brief exclusion of public from crowded courtroom was not a public trial violation where officer cleared back row of courtroom once first group of jurors had been seated in jury box and attempted to locate those who had been excluded holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled holding that the defendants right to presence was not violated where the defendant had been present in the courtroom while the venire members were questioned notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was absent later when his attorney made his strikes over the lunch hour because the defendant was present in the courtroom when the clerk gave the strikes effect by reading off the list of jurors who had not been stricken recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding public safety exception to miranda warning requirement did not apply where there was no evidence gun had been left in public place