Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied his statutory right to exercise peremptory challenges because the trial court seated a prospective juror whom his counsel had sought to eliminate. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), and, in any event, it was waived when defense counsel withdrew his challenge. The defendant also contends that the trial court improperly rejected as pretextual defense counsel's explanation, in response to the prosecutor's Batson objection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79), that he had challenged the prospective juror in question because her nephew had recently died from drug-related causes. However, the record reveals that defense counsel withdrew the challenge before the court made its determination.
The factual showing at the Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), was sufficient to support the closure of the courtroom during the undercover police officers' testimony (see, People v Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83). Bracken, J.P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.