DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court deprived him of his right to a public trial by stationing a police officer outside the courtroom door during the testimony of an undercover police officer is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Diaz, 265 A.D.2d 489). In any event, the trial court properly exercised its discretion. The undercover officer testified at a Hinton hearing ( see People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911) that he continued to work in an undercover capacity in the area where the defendant was arrested, that two of his cases from the area of the defendant's arrest remained open with lost subjects, and that his safety would be jeopardized if his identity was revealed ( see People v. Jones, 96 N.Y.2d 213; People v. Hargett, 293 A.D.2d 757).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.