Opinion
May 15, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
At the hearing conducted pursuant to People v Hinton ( 31 N.Y.2d 71), the undercover officer made a sufficient showing to justify closure of the courtroom. The undercover officer testified that he had open cases in the area of the defendant's arrest and would be returning to the area. The officer also testified that revealing his identity would endanger himself and his pending cases (see, People v Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v Hosien, 204 A.D.2d 658; People v Jamison, 203 A.D.2d 385). The defendant's contention that the closure of the courtroom was broader than necessary (see, People v Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54, 58), is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Balletta, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.