Opinion
April 6, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the court's closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Hammond, 208 A.D.2d 559). In any event, the court's determination in this regard was proper ( see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 574; People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310; People v. Wells, 225 A.D.2d 567; People v. Caraballo, 221 A.D.2d 553; People v. Thompson, 202 A.D.2d 454).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, based on matters dehors the record, without merit, or do not warrant reversal ( see, People v. Pondexter, 88 N.Y.2d 363; People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610; People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Bostic, 230 A.D.2d 804; People v. Clausell, 223 A.D.2d 598; People v. Ramos, 215 A.D.2d 785; People v. Karze, 207 A.D.2d 846; People v. Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248; People v. Carroll, 181 A.D.2d 904; People v. Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.