Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
By failing to oppose the People's request that the courtroom be closed during the testimony of certain undercover officers, the defendant waived his claim that the closure resulted in the denial of his right to a public trial (see, People v Scott, 134 A.D.2d 379; see also, People v Kersch, 135 A.D.2d 570).
The defendant's contention that he did not receive meaningful representation from his trial counsel is without merit. The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed together and as of the time of representation, reveal that the defendant was provided with the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.