The defendant, after being given these warnings, refused to come to the courtroom for the trial or sentencing. Reasonable efforts were made to determine whether his refusal was voluntary. The court properly determined that the trial and sentencing should proceed in his absence ( see People v Ciccarello, 276 AD2d 637; People v Dhan, 271 AD2d 452; People v Ravenell, 179 AD2d 788, 789).
Thus, the People were not required to provide the defendant with notice that they intended to call those witnesses to testify at trial ( see CPL 710.30; People v. Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 551-552; People v. Southerland, 288 AD2d 497; People v. Richardson, 212 AD2d 743; People v. Overton, 192 AD2d 624; People v. Moon, 180 AD2d 652; People v. Ravenell, 179 AD2d 788; cf. People v. Bello, 219 AD2d 657). The defendant's argument that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a baseball bat recovered from the trunk of a car he was driving when he was apprehended is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.
The courts have held that various narrowly-defined categories of prior viewings do not fall within the intendment of CPL 710.30 and, therefore, need not be noticed. These exceptions include, inter alia, viewings that are merely confirmatory (see, People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v Williamson, 79 N.Y.2d 799; People v Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915), viewings that are not police arranged (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543), and viewings that are inadvertent (see, People v Overton, 192 A.D.2d 624; People v Ravenell, 179 A.D.2d 788). When factual questions arise as to whether a viewing fits into one of these categories, a so-called "pre- Wade" hearing may be held to determine if there is a need for a Wade hearing (see, People v Williamson, 79 N.Y.2d 799, supra).
Thereafter, the informant spontaneously identified the defendant in the police parking lot. Neither identification was arranged by the police, and, in any event, the second viewing was merely confirmatory, since the informant had already identified the defendant (see, People v. Ravenell, 179 A.D.2d 788; People v. Harris, 171 A.D.2d 882). In addition, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel.
Similarly, the undercover officer's viewing of the defendant later that evening at the police station was mere happenstance and not the result of a prearranged police identification procedure. Therefore, it was not subject to CPL 710.30 (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v Ravenell, 179 A.D.2d 788). We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.