Opinion
February 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court erred in closing the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to object when the court, following a hearing, granted the People's application for closure (see, People v. Hammond, 208 A.D.2d 559; People v. Brown, 178 A.D.2d 647; People v Hamilton, 173 A.D.2d 642; People v. Watkins, 153 A.D.2d 767; see also, People v. Brown, 188 A.D.2d 540).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Davila, 188 A.D.2d 486; see also, People v. Beaumont, 170 A.D.2d 513; People v. Foster, 164 A.D.2d 894; People v. Gray, 144 A.D.2d 483). Miller, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.