DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to suppress money recovered from stereo speakers in his girlfriend's apartment as being the fruit of an illegal warrantless search. Even assuming, arguendo, that the defendant established standing to seek suppression of the evidence ( see People v. Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99; People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160), his motion papers, including those submitted on reargument, failed to controvert or even address the People's contention that the search was conducted pursuant to the valid consent of the defendant's girlfriend ( see CPL 710.60[b]; People v. Obee, 299 A.D.2d 426, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 584; see also People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415; People v. Kennedy, 284 A.D.2d 346).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, S. MILLER and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.