Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court considered reasonable alternatives to closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officers and the measures it adopted were narrowly tailored to protect the People's interests in guarding the identities of the undercover officers ( see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. State of New York, 522 U.S. 1002; People v. Pearson, 82 N.Y.2d 436). Rather than close the courtroom, the court posted a court officer outside the courtroom, who was instructed to obtain the names and addresses of those who wished to enter and the purpose for their presence in the courtroom. Moreover, the defendant's family and the defense counsel's colleague were permitted to remain in the courtroom. Accordingly, the defendant's right to a public trial was not violated ( see, People v. Brown, 243 A.D.2d 641; People v. Diaz, 237 A.D.2d 457).
Miller, J. P., Ritter, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.