particularly heinous and defendant, the victim’s mother, occupied a position of authority with respect to the [victim]. Thus, the court properly determined that there are such extraordinary circumstances as would cause the [victim] to suffer severe mental or emotional harm if she testified in defendant’s presence. People v. Martin, 294 A.D.2d at 850-51, 741 N.Y.S.2d 763 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Although the Confrontation Clause “guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact,” Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1016, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988), the right to such a confrontation is “not absolute,” United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 80 (2d Cir.1999) (citing Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 , 240 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>); see generally N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law §§ 65.10,
holding that a complaint is waived by the failure to object during the witness unsworn testimony holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources holding decision denying expert witness testimony during sentencing concerning impact of prison term on juvenile offender was not a denial of due process holding that a state courts decision to use a twoway closed circuit television during testimony of a child witness was reasonable