Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that preclusion of the identification testimony by the arresting officers was not warranted on the ground that the People failed to give notice of this testimony pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b). The record reveals that the officers identified the defendant in order to ensure that the correct person had been arrested (see, People v Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262, 271). Because the viewing by police was confirmatory, rather than a product of a police-arranged identification procedure, the People were not required to give notice of this prospective identification testimony under CPL 710.30 (1) (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v Aponte, 140 A.D.2d 702).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Holzer, 52 N.Y.2d 947) and, in any event, is devoid of merit. Mangano, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.