Opinion
March 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to preclude identification testimony of the police officer who identified defendant from a group of mug shots. The photo identification procedure took place three days after the officer participated in an undercover operation to purchase narcotics. The notice requirement of CPL 710.30 is not applicable where defendant's identity is not in issue (see, People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445, 449; People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence sufficiently linked defendant to the premises and the contraband, and established his dominion and control over them (see, People v. Torres, 68 N.Y.2d 677).