Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant contends that, because the People failed to file a CPL 710.30 notice, Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to preclude a Rochester police officer from testifying that, when he heard defendant's voice following defendant's arrest, he recognized it as a voice he heard in many of the telephone conversations intercepted pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant. We disagree. The identification of defendant's voice by a trained police officer who had become familiar with it while monitoring over 150 telephone calls over a 20-day period was confirmatory and therefore not subject to the notice requirement of CPL 710.30 ( see, People v. Deleon, 273 A.D.2d 27, 28, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 933 [decided Nov. 20, 2000]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied due process by the substitution of the Trial Justice during jury deliberations ( see, People v. Artist, 95 N.Y.2d 793 [decided Dec. 14, 2000]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]).