ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the trial court erred in permitting a witness to testify without meeting the requirements of CPL 60.25 (see, People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 1031; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, the defendant's attempt to apply CPL 60.25 to the circumstances here is misplaced, as no witness identification of the defendant was involved (see, CPL 60.25; People v. Bayron, 66 N.Y.2d 77).
The defendant's remaining contention is not properly before this court (see, People v. Ford, 69 N.Y.2d 775,777; People v. Kalaj, 247 A.D.2d 633, 634).