Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At trial, the defense counsel made a general objection to the prosecution's request to close the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer. Counsel did not request a hearing or contest the prosecutor's assertion that the witness's safety and future effectiveness would be compromised if his identity were made known to the public (see, People v. Osborne, 154 A.D.2d 484; People v. Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547, 550). Nevertheless, the court conducted a Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911) which demonstrated that the witness was, at the time of trial, still working in an undercover capacity in numerous cases, some of which were pending in the same geographic area as the case on trial (see, People v. Wharton, 143 A.D.2d 958, affd 74 N.Y.2d 921). Accordingly, the court properly determined that closure was necessary to protect the undercover police officer's safety and the integrity of his ongoing investigations (People v. Richards, 157 A.D.2d 753, affd 77 N.Y.2d 969).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.