Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During his trial testimony, one of the People's witnesses, for the first time, identified the defendant as having been present at a time and location proximate to the crime. The defendant contended that the in-court identification was improper because the People had failed to give notice pursuant to CPL 710.30. "However, the notice required by CPL 710.30 (1) (b) pertains to an anticipated in-court identification by a witness who has previously identified a defendant" (People v. Dozier, 150 A.D.2d 483, 484). Here, since the witness had failed to make a previous identification of the defendant, no such notice was required (see, People v. Monroig, 111 A.D.2d 935). Therefore, the trial court properly admitted the in-court identification. We note that the defendant had the opportunity, on cross-examination, to explore the witness's failure to identify the defendant from a photographic array.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.