Opinion
February 23, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Term's suppression ruling was proper because, inter alia, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the defendant was a mere visitor in the apartment from which the physical evidence was seized, and, under all the circumstances, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment (see, People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160; People v. Alicia, 113 A.D.2d 944; People v. Bencevi, 111 A.D.2d 397; People v. Farinaro, 110 A.D.2d 653).
The defendant's other contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law or without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.