Opinion
November 3, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during summation are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070). In any event, the remarks were, for the most part, responsive to arguments advanced by the defense ( see, People v. Ortiz, 217 A.D.2d 425). Even assuming the impropriety of some of the remarks, they did not constitute reversible error ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's contentions regarding the allegedly improper closure of the courtroom during the testimony of Undercover Officer 6800 are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v Latta, 222 A.D.2d 303; People v. Hammond, 208 A.D.2d 559). In any event, they are without merit, as are his allegations of impropriety with respect to courtroom closure during the testimony of the other undercover officers. In light of the evidence adduced at each of the Hinton hearings ( see, People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71), we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that overriding interests were likely to be prejudiced by open-court testimony ( see, People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490). In addition, implicit in the trial court's decision was a determination that "no lesser alternative would protect the articulated interest[s]" ( People v. Ayala, supra, at 504).
Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.