DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's alternative to closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers did not deprive him of his right to a public trial (see, People v. Rodriguez, 258 A.D.2d 483; see also, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, 522 U.S. 1002).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention raised in his supplemental pro se brief is without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., RITTER, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.