Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress items seized from his home and garage. The scope and duration of the warrantless search was both limited by and reasonably related to the exigencies of the situation ( see, People v. Rielly, 190 A.D.2d 695; People v Kane, 175 A.D.2d 881). Furthermore, the finding that the complainant, the defendant's live-in girlfriend, had the apparent authority to consent to a warrantless search is supported by the record and should not be disturbed ( see, People v. Qazi, 220 A.D.2d 464).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation ( see, People v. Farrington, 225 A.D.2d 633).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.