Opinion
April 27, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions regarding the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to consider them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Polhill, 237 A.D.2d 539).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.