Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the credibility of an undercover officer was improperly bolstered by testimony of the officer concerning his training and the comment of the prosecutor thereon. These issues were not properly preserved for appellate review and, given the over-all fairness of the defendant's trial, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review them.
In addition, we find that the partial closure of the court-room during the testimony of the undercover officer, following a hearing on the matter, was an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion considering the circumstances involved (see, e.g., People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911; People v Rickenbacker, 50 A.D.2d 566). Mollen, P.J., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.