DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence recovered from his motel room without a warrant should have been suppressed. We disagree. The evidence at the hearing established that the defendant's girlfriend opened the motel room with a key, where the police officers observed, inter alia, men's and women's clothing strewn about the room, as well as on hangers in the closet. An objective evaluation of the evidence indicates that the defendant's girlfriend had apparent authority to consent to the search, and that the police properly relied on that apparent authority (see People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 1, 8-10; People v. Venable, 192 A.D.2d 565; People v. George, 150 A.D.2d 486).
The hearing court also properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress his statement to the police approximately two to three hours after the police administered Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police were not obligated to re-administer Miranda warnings since he voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights and remained in continuous custody (see People v. Thomas, 233 A.D.2d 347; People v. Baker, 208 A.D.2d 758; People v. Vasquez, 183 A.D.2d 864; People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710, cert denied sub nom Glinsman v. New York, 472 U.S. 1021).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.