ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied his right to a public trial (see, US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4; People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, cert denied 444 U.S. 946) because the Supreme Court excluded his brother and cousin from the courthouse during the testimony of an undercover officer. We disagree. During the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the defendant objected to the exclusion of his brother and cousin. When a defendant seeks to limit closure to permit the attendance of certain individuals, the People must present evidence that those individuals threaten the safety of the witness (see, People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532; People v. Johnson, 222 A.D.2d 456). Here, the officer testified, inter alia, that he had ongoing undercover operations and investigations within the locale of the arrest, that he would be returning to that location within days of his testimony, and that if his identity were revealed, his safety and cases would be endangered. The defendant's brother and cousin lived within the area of the undercover operations, and the officer reasonably feared that they would be able to identify him during these operations, jeopardizing himself and his team (see, People v. Feliciano, 228 A.D.2d 519; see also, People v. Dorcas, 218 A.D.2d 813; People v. Powell, 246 A.D.2d 494; People v. Yung, 240 A.D.2d 252).
O'BRIEN, J.P., FLORIO, FEUERSTEIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.