The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in closing the courtroom to the general public during the testimony of the undercover officer, based on the officer's testimony at the Hinton hearing that he was then engaged in undercover operations in the area of the instant arrest, that he expected to return to the area after the trial to continue undercover assignments in the area, and that he received threats in the past while working in the area and feared for his safety if his identity as an undercover officer, which he took pains to conceal, was revealed in open court. This evidence satisfied the standard articulated in People v. Martinez ( 82 N.Y.2d 436), which is the standard applicable to this case ( see, People v. Lugo, 233 A.D.2d 197, 198).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.