Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the County Court should have suppressed the pretrial photographic and in-court identification testimony by two detectives because the People failed to timely notify him of the photographic identification pursuant to CPL 710.30. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion (see People v Grajales,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.