Opinion
April 1, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was entitled to notice, pursuant to CPL 710.30, of the initial identification of him by one of the complainants ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the identification was not subject to notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 since the prosecution did not intend to offer evidence of it at trial ( see, People v. Goodson, 57 N.Y.2d 828; People v. Degrijze, 194 A.D.2d 801).
We find that the portions of the defendant's statement relating to uncharged crimes were properly admitted into evidence on the issues of intent, acting in concert, and a common scheme or plan ( see, People v. Carter, 77 N.Y.2d 95, cert denied 499 U.S. 967; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233).
The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.