Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court did not abuse its discretion in closing the courtroom to spectators during the testimony of the rape victim (see, Judiciary Law § 4). The charges involved sordid, demeaning acts and required embarrassing testimony. The court was informed that the victim was tense and would be more comfortable testifying in private (see, People v. Joseph, 59 N.Y.2d 496, 498-499; People v. Pasko, 115 A.D.2d 114, 115, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 887). Although it would have been preferable for the court to conduct a hearing on the closure issue, none was required and the court's inquiry of counsel was sufficient under the circumstances presented (cf., People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 414, cert denied 444 U.S. 946). The court properly denied defendant's motion to set aside the verdict because there was no showing of juror misconduct or outside influence (see, CPL 330.30; People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 393; People v. De Lucia, 20 N.Y.2d 275; People v. Rhodes, 92 A.D.2d 744). The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting interruption of the victim's testimony and, in any event, defendant has not established any prejudice from the court's ruling (see, People v. Olsen, 34 N.Y.2d 349, 353; People v. Cook, 128 A.D.2d 948, 950, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 644).