Opinion
December 30, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred by responding to certain requests from the deliberating jury in his absence and that this error deprived him of the opportunity to be heard regarding the jury's request for one of the trial exhibits (see, CPL 310.20; People v Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585). However, the resettled record reveals that the defendant was present in the courtroom with his attorney when the court responded to requests for information from the jury. No objection was registered by the defense counsel to the trial court's response to the requests. Thus, any issue with respect to the court's handling of the jury's requests is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05).
The defendant further contends that the court erred in closing the courtroom to the public during the testimony of an undercover police officer. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object when the court, following a hearing, granted the People's application for closure (see, People v Contino, 153 A.D.2d 948; People v Gonzalez, 135 A.D.2d 829; CPL 470.05). In any event, the evidence adduced at the hearing establishes that the court's decision was proper (see, People v Weaver, 162 A.D.2d 486; People v Contino, supra).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Harwood, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.