The totality of the testimony adduced at the Hinton hearing, including continuing connections between the undercover officer and the location of defendant's arrest, supported the court's decision to close the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer, notwithstanding the undercover's recent transfer to a different county (see, People v. Hall, 248 A.D.2d 285lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 1008).
Defendant's claim that the prosecutor improperly accused defendant of tailoring his testimony after hearing the People's evidence is a claim requiring preservation (see, People v. Agramonte, 87 N.Y.2d 765;People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that the record does not support such a reading of the challenged statement.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.