People v. Rolison

OPINION OF THE COURT

Thomas B. Galligan, J.

The defendant, Bradley Rolison, has moved to preclude in-court identification testimony on the ground that the prosecution has failed to comply with its statutory obligation pursuant to CPL 710.30 to provide the defense with identification notice within 15 days of arraignment (see, People v McMullin, 70 NY2d 855; People v Bernier, 141 AD2d 750 [2d Dept 1988]).

The prosecution concedes that notice was not served within the 15-day mandate of the statute.

However, they argue that notice was not required because *319the subject identification was confirmatory…