Since defendant's preclusion motion was based on a completely different ground, his present claim that the court should have precluded the in-court identification of an eyewitness for lack of notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b) is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review defendant's claim, we would find it to be without merit since under the circumstances of this case, the People were...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
