Opinion
September 29, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and that he was in constructive possession of the cocaine seized at the scene of the crime ( see, People v. Pearson, 76 N.Y.2d 1001; People v. Johnson, 209 A.D.2d 721). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.16 [6]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly sealed the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer was not preserved for appellate review since the defendant raised no objection to the closure ( see, People v Cortez, 237 A.D.2d 297; People v. Hammond, 208 A.D.2d 669; People v Brown, 178 A.D.2d 647).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Joy, J.P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.