PEOPLE v. PATTERSON

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to deny the defendant's request for additional peremptory challenges ( see, People v. Campo, 156 A.D.2d 375; People v. Rivera, 137 A.D.2d 634). In addition, contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly ordered partial closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer ( see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). Furthermore, no reasonable view of the evidence supports the defendant's contention that he was entitled to an agency charge ( see, People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Gaines, 249 A.D.2d 323).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

S. MILLER, J.P., ALTMAN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.