Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In view of the strength of the People's case and the absence of any legitimate defenses, the record reveals that defense counsel provided adequate and meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147; People v. Mapp, 47 N.Y.2d 939, 940). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in closing the courtroom and excluding defendant's family during the testimony of the undercover police officer. The court was informed during an in camera hearing that the officer was involved in ongoing narcotics investigations and that his safety would be jeopardized if he testified in public (see, People v. Richards, 157 A.D.2d 753, affd 77 N.Y.2d 969). Moreover, there was no showing of a compelling need for defendant's family to be present (cf., People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54, 59, rearg denied 78 N.Y.2d 1008).