PEOPLE v. BUNKER

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that all of the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court's sealing of the courtroom during the jury charge, permitting all of those who had timely arrived to remain in the courtroom, did not constitute a closure of the courtroom requiring specific findings on the record ( see, People v. Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, 417, cert denied 487 U.S. 1239) and did not deprive him of his constitutional right to a public trial ( People v. Colon, supra, at 418).

Moreover, the showup identification procedure at which the defendant was identified by one of the complainants was reasonable and was not impermissibly suggestive, as it was conducted in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime ( see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366).

The sentence is excessive to the extent indicated.

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

S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.