Opinion
November 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that he has automatic standing to contest the lawfulness of the search of the apartment and the seizure of the narcotics and sawed-off rifle is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Cofresi, 60 N.Y.2d 728, 730).
"Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom" (People v. Giuliano, 65 N.Y.2d 766, 768), we find that the circumstantial evidence adduced at the trial was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Chalmars, 176 A.D.2d 239). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in closing the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony (see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 443; People v Reece, 204 A.D.2d 495).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lawrence, J.P., O'Brien, Freidmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.