Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the "point-out" identification at issue was a witness-initiated procedure ( see, People v. Flores, 232 A.D.2d 654; People v. Burgos, 219 A.D.2d 504; cf., People v. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218). Thus, the People are not required to provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 that they intend to present evidence of the identification at trial ( see, People v. Burgos, supra).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.