Opinion
December 16, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer was proper. After a hearing, the court concluded that the closure was necessary for the officer's safety, because the officer testified that he was still operating in an undercover capacity in Queens County. We find that this conclusion was proper (see, People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911; People v Brown, 172 A.D.2d 844; People v Hazzard, 177 A.D.2d 594; People v Planes, 158 A.D.2d 481; People v Richards, 157 A.D.2d 753, affd 77 N.Y.2d 969).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.