Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial when the testimony of a prosecution witness exceeded the scope of the court's Ventimiglia ruling. The record does not support defendant's allegation that the prosecutor purposefully elicited the objectionable testimony; rather, the record shows that the witness volunteered information and that her answers were largely unresponsive. Moreover, the court sustained defense objections to the testimony and gave prompt curative instructions to the jurors that the answers were stricken and should be disregarded. Under those circumstances, reversal is not required ( see, People v Mosley, 170 A.D.2d 990, 991, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 964; cf., People v Hammock, 182 A.D.2d 1114).
The court did not err in denying defendant's motion to preclude the identification testimony of the robbery victim on the ground that the People failed to serve a CPL 710.30 notice. A CPL 710.30 notice was not required; the victim failed to identify defendant at a showup, indicating only that some of the clothing worn by defendant and his height resembled that of the robber ( see, People v. Trammel, 84 N.Y.2d 584, 588; People v. Rohan, 214 A.D.2d 755, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 740). We conclude that the showup was justified by the exigencies of the situation and that defendant's suppression motion was properly denied ( see, People v. Maybell, 198 A.D.2d 108, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 927; People v. White, 185 A.D.2d 472, 473, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 935; People v. West, 128 A.D.2d 570, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 658; cf., People v. Walker, 198 A.D.2d 826, 827-828).