DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that certain evidence should have been suppressed as the product of his allegedly illegal arrest or of an allegedly illegal search of the automobile in which he was a passenger. However, the defendant lacks standing to seek suppression of property seized from the person of his accomplice ( see People v. Morales, 116 A.D.2d 671), and he failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the automobile ( see People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160; People v. Collier, 107 A.D.2d 754; People v. Cacioppo, 104 A.D.2d 559). Accordingly, that branch of his motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied.
The defendant contends that the court erred in failing to suppress testimony regarding an alleged showup identification by the complainant at the scene of the crime. However, as the People did not offer evidence at the trial of an identification of the defendant by the complainant, his contention is academic ( see People v. Woodberry, 176 A.D.2d 770).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit ( see People v. Moise, 1 A.D.3d 464 [decided herewith]).
GOLDSTEIN, J.P., ADAMS, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.