After a Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the Supreme Court excluded the defendant's girlfriend from the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers, who were to testify to the "buy and bust" procedure that led to the defendant's arrest. Before a trial court may exclude a specific individual from the courtroom by a closure order, the People must present evidence that the individual poses a threat to the safety of an undercover officer, who is going to testify (see, People v. Rentas, 253 A.D.2d 469; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532). Here, the girlfriend's residence in Brooklyn, where the "buy and bust" operation took place, was the only reason advanced by the People for her exclusion. This reason was insufficient (see, People v. Rentas, supra; People v. Scott, supra; People v. Gayle, supra) and therefore the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

We disagree. During the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the defendant objected to the exclusion of his brother and cousin. When a defendant seeks to limit closure to permit the attendance of certain individuals, the People must present evidence that those individuals threaten the safety of the witness (see, People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532; People v. Johnson, 222 A.D.2d 456). Here, the officer testified, inter alia, that he had ongoing undercover operations and investigations within the locale of the arrest, that he would be returning to that location within days of his testimony, and that if his identity were revealed, his safety and cases would be endangered.

During the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the defendant argued against closure and to allow his mother, girlfriend, and child to be present. Thus, to properly exclude them from the courtroom, the People were required to present evidence that they threatened the safety of the undercover officer (see, People v. Glover, 93 N.Y.2d 1010; People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54; People v. Perez, 252 A.D.2d 593; People v. Vargas, 244 A.D.2d 367; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532). Although the undercover officer would be returning immediately to the area in which the defendant was arrested, nothing in the record demonstrated that the defendant's mother, girlfriend, or child posed a threat to the undercover officer (see, People v. Perez, supra; People v. Vargas, supra).

During the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the defendant argued against closure and to allow his mother to be present. Thus, to properly exclude her from the courtroom, the People were required to present evidence that she threatened the safety of the undercover officer (see, People v. Glover, 93 N.Y.2d 1010; People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54; People v. Perez, 252 A.D.2d 593; People v. Vargas, 244 A.D.2d 367; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532). Although the undercover officer would be returning immediately to the area in which the defendant was arrested, nothing in the record demonstrates that the defendant's mother posed a threat to the officer (see, People v. Perez, supra; People v. Vargas, supra).

At the hearing conducted pursuant to People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911, the People failed to establish that the defendant's fiance´e posed a threat to the safety of the undercover officer, as there was no evidence that she either resided or worked in the neighborhood where the officer was actively engaged in buy-and-bust operations. As the closure order was broader than necessary and not supported by the record, the defendant is entitled to a new trial (see, People v. Rentas, 253 A.D.2d 469; People v. Vargas, 244 A.D.2d 367; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532; People v. Pankey, 219 A.D.2d 737).

During the Hinton hearing (see, People v.Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the defendant argued against closure, stating that his wife and child had been attending the proceedings and therefore should not be excluded. To properly exclude them from the courtroom, the People were required to present evidence that those individuals threatened the safety of the undercover officer (see, People v. Glover, N.Y.2d [Aug. 26, 1999]; People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817;People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54; People v. Perez, 252 A.D.2d 593; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544;People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532). Although the undercover officer testified that he would be immediately returning to the area in which the defendant was arrested, nothing in the record demonstrates, and the Supreme Court did not find, that the defendant's wife and child posed a threat to the officer.

During the Hinton hearing ( see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the defendant argued against closure, stating that his wife and child had been attending the proceedings and therefore should not be excluded. To properly exclude them from the courtroom, the People were required to present evidence that those individuals threatened the safety of the undercover officer ( see, People v. Glover, ___ N.Y.2d ___ [Aug. 26, 1999]; People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54; People v. Perez, 252 A.D.2d 593; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532). Although the undercover officer testified that he would be immediately returning to the area in which the defendant was arrested, nothing in the record demonstrates, and the Supreme Court did not find, that the defendant's wife and child posed a threat to the officer.

During the Hinton hearing ( see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the defendant objected to the exclusion of his family. When the defendant seeks to limit closure to permit the attendance of certain individuals, the People must present evidence, that those individuals threaten the safety of the witness ( see, People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532; People v. Johnson, 222 A.D.2d 456). Although the undercover officer would be immediately returning to the area in which the defendant was arrested, nothing in the record demonstrates, nor did the Supreme Court make a finding, that the defendant's wife and/or children posed a threat to the officer.

During the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the defendant objected to the exclusion of his girlfriend. When a defendant seeks to limit closure to permit the attendance of certain individuals, the People must present evidence that those individuals threaten the safety of the witness (see, People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532; People v. Johnson, 222 A.D.2d 456). Although the undercover officer would be returning to the area in which the defendant was arrested, nothing in the record demonstrates that the girlfriend resided or worked in that area.

During the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), the defendant objected to the exclusion of his sister. When a defendant seeks to limit closure of the courtroom, to permit the attendance of certain individuals, the People must present evidence that those individuals threaten the safety of the witness (see, People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532; People v. Johnson, 222 A.D.2d 456). Although the undercover officer would be immediately returning to the area in which the defendant was arrested and in which the defendant's sister resided, nothing in the record demonstrates, and the Supreme Court did not find, that the defendant's sister posed a threat to the officer.