Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
Upon the People's application, the trial court partially closed the courtroom and excluded the defendant's young male friends during the testimony of one of the People's witnesses. The court permitted all of the women, including the defendant's mother and girlfriend, to remain in the courtroom.
The decision to close a courtroom must be preceded by an inquiry careful enough to assure the court that the defendant's right to a public trial has not been sacrificed for less than compelling reasons (see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 414-415, cert denied 444 U.S. 946). A formal hearing is not always required, and careful inquiry directed at counsel, the witness, or the spectators present in the courtroom may be sufficient (see, People v. Jones, supra, at 415).
In the present case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in closing the courtroom. The People established that the witness was afraid to testify because the defendant's brother had threatened to kill her if she appeared in court, and that the defendant's friends had threatened the witness's brother and mother.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) and, in any event, without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.