Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that identification testimony and a statement made by him to the police should have been suppressed as the purported fruits of an unlawful arrest is without merit. The defendant's arrest at the doorway of his apartment did not violate Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573). The rule of Payton prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest absent exigent circumstances or the suspect's consent to the entry of the police into his home (see, Payton v. New York, supra; People v. Minley, 68 N.Y.2d 952). The doorway to a private residence has been held to be a public place for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, since the defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy while standing there, exposed to public view (see, United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38; People v. Rosario, 179 A.D.2d 442; People v. Anderson, 146 A.D.2d 638; People v. Nonni, 141 A.D.2d 862).
The defendant further contends that the court erred by denying his request for a missing witness charge with respect to a witness at the scene of the shooting. This contention is without merit as the People met their burden of establishing that the testimony would have been cumulative (see, People v. Lucas, 177 A.D.2d 599; People v. Morris, 168 A.D.2d 464).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.