Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to sustain his burden of showing that he was an overnight guest of the tenant in whose apartment he was arrested and thus failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy therein (see, People v. Garrett, 177 A.D.2d 705; People v. Gamble, 182 A.D.2d 703; cf., Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91). Accordingly, the defendant's warrantless arrest inside the apartment was proper. Moreover, even if the defendant had standing to challenge the police entry into the apartment, the arrest would still be valid under the exigent circumstances exception to the Payton rule (Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573). The defendant had been identified to the police as a participant in a murder that had taken place just three days prior to the arrest, and the police had information that the defendant was in the apartment and preparing to leave the city (see, People v Levine, 174 A.D.2d 757; People v. Cartier, 149 A.D.2d 524; People v. Brown, 130 A.D.2d 585). In any event, there is evidence in the record that the tenant of the apartment voluntarily consented to the entry of the police (see, People v. Matus, 166 A.D.2d 464).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v. Pettiford, 78 A.D.2d 823) or without merit (see, People v. Hawthorne, 160 A.D.2d 727). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.