Opinion
December 1, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in not considering reasonable alternatives to closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer is not preserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 444; People v. Richards, 235 A.D.2d 557; People v. Badillo, 207 A.D.2d 742). In any event, the claim is without merit because the court considered the only alternative suggested by the defendant before properly rejecting it and was under no obligation to explore other alternatives to closure not raised by the defendant ( see, People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15)
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.