Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. We see no reason to disturb the court's credibility determination that defendant, who was arrested in the apartment of a third party, did not rent a room therein and did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Even were we to find that defendant did have standing, we would find that the record also supports the court's finding that the police justifiably relied on the apparent authority of a third party to consent to the search (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 1, 9 cert denied, 454 U.S. 854). In this regard, we see no reason to disturb the court's credibility determination that the third party, the lessee of the apartment, voluntarily gave her consent to the search of the bedroom in question.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.