The complainant's second identification of defendant at the police precinct was clearly confirmatory (People v. Martindale, 202 A.D.2d 158) and therefore the People were not required to give notice to defendant of said confirmatory identification under CPL 710.30 (see, People v. Duffy, 152 A.D.2d 704). Moreover, since the confirmatory identification was not suggestive, there was no need to call the complainant to testify at the hearing (see, People v Peterkin, 75 N.Y.2d 985).
We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.