After a Hinton hearing, the court ruled that the People had made a sufficient showing to warrant closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony. However, rather than actually closing the courtroom the court decided, sua sponte, to post a court officer outside the courtroom with instructions to notify the court if anyone sought entry. Since defendant made no objection to this alternative to closure, his current objection is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court's action was appropriate. This screening procedure was not a closure of the courtroom, and would not have ripened into even a partial closure unless and until someone was denied entry (People v. Perez, 245 A.D.2d 71, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976). In any event, theHinton hearing testimony provided a sufficient basis for closure.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.