The court's summary denial of defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence was proper since the allegations contained in his motion papers, even when considered in light of the felony complaint and the People's voluntary disclosure form, failed to establish that he had standing to contest the seizure of the cigarette box (CPL 710.60; People v. Whitfield, 81 N.Y.2d 904; see also, People v. Lovejoy, 197 A.D.2d 353, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 926).
Defendant's challenge to the court's failure to address the Dunaway claim raised in his motion to suppress identification evidence has not been preserved for appellate review since defendant did nothing to alert the court that it had overlooked one aspect of his motion (CPL 470.05), thereby acquiescing in the lack of a ruling, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice ( see, People v. Reyes, 165 A.D.2d 712, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 965).
The failure to provide an adequate record renders defendant's contention that he was denied his right to a speedy trial unreviewable ( People v. Velez, 223 A.D.2d 414, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 855; see also, People v. Lopez, 228 A.D.2d 395, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 1022).
The court properly refused defendant's request for a circumstantial evidence charge since the evidence adduced at trial was both direct and circumstantial ( see, People v. Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.