"[W]here different inferences can be reasonably drawn from the evidence produced at trial, the question of whether a particular person is an accomplice is a question of fact for the jury" (People v. Jeffries, 122 A.D.2d 281, 282; see, People v. Cobos, 57 N.Y.2d 798; People v. Tusa, 137 A.D.2d 151). The Supreme Court properly charged the jury on that issue, and the witness's testimony was sufficiently corroborated (see, People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624). After consulting with the defendant, the defense counsel effectively waived the defendant's right to a public trial by consenting, in his presence, to the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers (see, People v. Miller, 257 N.Y. 54; People v. Sevencan, 258 A.D.2d 485; People v. Daughtry, 242 A.D.2d 731; People v. Espejo, 237 A.D.2d 458). The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the trial court violated his right to a public trial during the testimony of two undercover police officers was not preserved for appellate review since the defendant consented to the procedure employed by the trial court (see, People v. Melendez, 265 A.D.2d 346; see generally, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. State of New York, 522 U.S. 1002; People v. Espejo, 237 A.D.2d 458). In any event, the procedure was a reasonable alternative to the closure of the courtroom (see, People v. Ramos, supra; People v. Oliphant, 258 A.D.2d 536). The defendant's assertion that the presence of a court officer stationed outside the courtroom had an intimidating effect upon potential spectators is without merit (see, People v. Jones, 266 A.D.2d 476).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, the defense counsel effectively waived the defendant's right to a public trial by consenting to the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover police officers (see, People v. Miller, 257 N.Y. 54 ; People v. Sevencan, ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Feb. 1, 1999];People v. Daughtry, 242 A.D.2d 731; People v. Espejo, 237 A.D.2d 458). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, the defense counsel effectively waived the defendant's right to a public trial by consenting to the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover police officers (see, People v. Miller, 257 N.Y. 54; People v. Sevencan, ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Feb. 1, 1999]; People v. Daughtry, 242 A.D.2d 731; People v. Espejo, 237 A.D.2d 458). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, the defense counsel effectively waived the defendant's right to a public trial by consenting to the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover police officers ( see, People v. Miller, 257 N.Y. 54; People v. Sevencan, 258 A.D.2d 485 [2d Dept., Feb. 1, 1999]; People v. Daughtry, 242 A.D.2d 731; People v. Espejo, 237 A.D.2d 458). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.