Opinion
May 9, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's position, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's request to deliver his summation after the prosecutor completed his closing remarks. The defendant failed to demonstrate "any compelling reason" for the court to alter the prescribed order of a criminal trial as set forth in CPL 260.30 (see, People v Seiler, 246 N.Y. 262; People v Pollard, 54 A.D.2d 1012; People v Winchell, 36 A.D.2d 779).
Secondly, the defendant's claim that the trial court's closure of the courtroom during the jury charge deprived him of a fair trial was not preserved for appellate review since he failed to interpose a timely objection thereto (see, People v Sagginario, 137 A.D.2d 636; People v Kersch, 135 A.D.2d 570). In any event, that contention is without merit (see, People v Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.