Opinion
January 26, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.).
Defendant's contention that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony of the sole witness to the murder was inconsistent and contradictory is without merit. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), the jury's determination of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the second degree is amply supported (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The sole eyewitness testified that he observed defendant, whom he had known prior to the shooting, shoot the victim three times with a .38 caliber pistol. Moreover, the testimony was corroborated by the ballistics evidence, the findings of the medical examiner, and the testimony of the police. We find no reason on the record before us to disturb the jury's determination (see, People v. Foskey, 190 A.D.2d 638).
Defendant's contention raised in his pro se supplemental brief that the testimony of the People's identification witness should have been precluded since the People failed to provide notice of his testimony pursuant to CPL 710.30 prior to trial is without merit. No notice was required inasmuch as the witness was sufficiently familiar with defendant and the identification was merely confirmatory (People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915). Thus, even had defense counsel failed to raise this objection before the trial court, defendant would not have been denied effective assistance of counsel.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Rubin, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.