Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was deprived of his right to be present during all material stages of the trial. We agree. The record establishes that defendant was not present during County Court's in-chambers Sandoval conference and, thus, reversal is mandated (see, CPL 260.20; People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254, rearg denied 83 N.Y.2d 801; People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656; People v. Balkum, 199 A.D.2d 975, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 849).
We further conclude that reversal is mandated because the court closed the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer. Limitations on a defendant's right to a public trial should be "sparingly exercised" (People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 76, cert denied 410 U.S. 911). Before closing the courtroom, the court must conduct a careful inquiry to ensure that there are compelling reasons for doing so and articulate those reasons on the record (see, People v. Clemons, 78 N.Y.2d 48, 52; People v Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54, 58, rearg denied 78 N.Y.2d 1008; People v Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, cert denied 444 U.S. 946). Because the court did not conduct an adequate inquiry or sufficiently articulate its reasons for closure, defendant was deprived of his right to a public trial (see, People v. Kearse, 186 A.D.2d 978, 979, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 790; see also, People v. Kin Kan, supra, at 59; People v. Jones, supra, at 415-417).