DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant did not demonstrate that he had a right of privacy in the premises searched. He therefore had no standing to raise a challenge to the constitutionality of the search (see, People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160 ; People v. Lehinan, 90 A.D.2d 74 ). The People properly raised the issue of standing for the first time on appeal, since it was the defendant's burden, in the first instance, to establish that he had standing (see, People v. Poree, 240 A.D.2d 597 ; People v. Jackson, 207 A.D.2d 805 ).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court correctly found the defendant's confession to be admissible. The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to refuse to give a statement (see, People v. Ridgeway, 101 A.D.2d 555, aff'd 64 N.Y.2d 952 ; see also,People v. McDowell, 202 A.D.2d 1021 ; People v. Slaughter, 163 A.D.2d 342, 345-346 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.