Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the identification testimony of the complaining witness should have been precluded because the People failed to provide timely notice as required by CPL 710.30 (1) (b). However, since the prosecutor provided good cause for the failure to provide timely notice, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion (see, CPL...
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.