Opinion
February 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer was proper. After a hearing, the court determined that the police officer was still operating undercover in Queens County and that the closure of the courtroom during his testimony was necessary to protect him. The court properly articulated its findings as to the necessity of the closure (see, People v Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, cert denied 444 U.S. 946; People v Richards, 157 A.D.2d 753; People v Bowden, 156 A.D.2d 372; People v Wharton, 143 A.D.2d 958, affd 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v Policano, 139 A.D.2d 773).
The defendant's contention that various comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of his right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). In any event, since there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, any error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.