Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improperly close the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer. The officer testified at the closure hearing that he feared for his safety if he testified in open court because his "lost subjects" from undercover operations could identify him and because he had received threats and expected to return to the area where the defendant was arrested. These facts meet the requirements for closure under People v Martinez ( 82 N.Y.2d 436, 442) (see, People v. Mitchell, 209 A.D.2d 444; People v. Skinner, 204 A.D.2d 664).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.