People v. Mena

OPINION OF THE COURT

Robert G. Seewald, J.

Defendant’s motion to suppress the eyewitness’s identification testimony upon the sole alleged ground that the People’s CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice was insufficient is denied.

Defendant, who concedes that he was in fact served with the *464People’s "710 notice” upon his arraignment on the indictment —and thus there is no issue of untimeliness (compare, People v McMullin, 70 NY2d 855) — maintains that the aforesaid "notice is more akin to a 'blank notice’ ” because it omits the name of the identifying witness and, therefore, the People failed to comply with…