Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant's right to a public trial (US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4) was abridged when the trial court, without further inquiry, acceded to the prosecutor's request that the court be closed to the public during the testimony of an undercover police officer (see, People v Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, cert denied 444 U.S. 946). Although the right to a public trial is neither inflexible nor absolute, the discretion to limit the public nature of judicial proceedings is to be "sparingly exercised" (People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 76, cert denied 410 U.S. 911). There should be no closure unless preceded by an inquiry careful enough to assure the court that defendant's right to a public trial is not sacrificed for less than compelling reasons (People v Jones, supra, at 414-415). Following such an inquiry, the court's reasons for ordering closure must be sufficiently articulated to permit appellate review (Waller v Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 45; 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 Cordero, 150 A.D.2d 258, 259, affd 75 N.Y.2d 757; People v Williams, 178 A.D.2d 958, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 954). Where, as here, the trial court failed to inquire fully into the prosecutor's request that the courtroom be closed to the public and failed to articulate any basis for its ruling on the record, reversal and a new trial are required irrespective of prejudice (People v Kin Kan, supra, at 59; People v Jones, supra, at 415-417).