PEOPLE v. PEREZ

Defendant did not preserve his current claims that the court should have struck certain identification testimony on the ground of the People's alleged failure to provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b), or that the previous Wade hearing should have been reopened. In this connection, defendant may not rely upon an objection entered by counsel for the codefendant ( People v. Buckley, 75 N.Y.2d 843).

The court's Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecutor to elicit defendant's prior robbery conviction, a matter highly relevant to credibility, was an appropriate exercise of discretion ( People v. Reid, 190 A.D.2d 575, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1078).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.