Ordered that the amended judgment and the judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's claim that his plea of guilty under Indictment No. 12500/91 is defective because he raised an agency defense during the allocution is not before this Court, since the defendant did not appeal from the original judgment which resulted from the plea of guilty (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Correa, 118 A.D.2d 651; People v. Mackey, 77 N.Y.2d 846; People v. King, 195 A.D.2d 290; People v. Prescott, 180 A.D.2d 654). In any event, the defendant's plea allocution did not raise the possibility of an agency defense but rather, indicated that the defendant was a seller of cocaine (see, People v. Ramirez, 159 A.D.2d 375).
With respect to the proceedings under Indictment No. 13173/91, we find that the trial court properly ordered the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer after holding a Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 76, cert denied 410 U.S. 911). The undercover officer testified that he was working on five pending investigations involving long-term buys in the same vicinity where the defendant was arrested and where the undercover officer previously worked, and that disclosure of the undercover officer's identity would endanger his safety and jeopardize those operations (see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61, 65; People v. Thompson, 202 A.D.2d 456; People v. Brown, 172 A.D.2d 844, 845; People v. Weaver, 162 A.D.2d 486, 487).
Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt and to disprove his agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 20.00; People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Flayhart, 72 N.Y.2d 737, 741; People v Williams, 172 A.D.2d 448, affd 79 N.Y.2d 803; People v. Overton, 168 A.D.2d 575). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Goldstein, JJ., concur.