PEOPLE v. AKAYDIN (1999)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), rendered September 22, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant contends that his conviction must be reversed since it was based solely upon his mere presence at the apartment of codefendant Salih Sevencan (see, People v. Sevencan, 258 A.D.2d 485, 685 N.Y.S.2d 735 [decided herewith] ) during one of a series of sales of heroin to an undercover police officer.   The defendant's claim is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to raise this specific argument before the trial court (see, CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Santos, 86 N.Y.2d 869, 635 N.Y.S.2d 168, 658 N.E.2d 1041;  People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   The People's evidence showed that the defendant accompanied Sevencan to meetings with his heroin suppliers and participated in the sale of five kilograms of that heroin to an undercover officer by coordinating Sevencan's meeting with the officer and then standing guard outside the apartment door as the actual transaction took place.   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[5] ).

 The defendant also contends that he was denied his right to a public trial when, after Hinton hearings (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 334 N.Y.S.2d 885, 286 N.E.2d 265, cert. denied 410 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 970, 35 L.Ed.2d 273), the court closed the courtroom to spectators during the testimony of two undercover officers.   The hearing testimony established that closure was necessary to protect the safety of the officers and the integrity of their ongoing investigations (see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 604 N.Y.S.2d 932, 624 N.E.2d 1027;  People v. Hinton, supra;  People v. Garcia, 239 A.D.2d 599, 658 N.Y.S.2d 365;  People v. Mitchell, 209 A.D.2d 444, 618 N.Y.S.2d 457).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.