Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The issue raised by the defendant with respect to the timely sealing of certain tape recordings made pursuant to a court-ordered telephone wiretap has been addressed on the appeal of his codefendant (see, People v. Fata, 159 A.D.2d 180 [decided herewith]), and we find no basis for a different determination here.
We note that the defendant does not have standing to seek suppression of those conversations intercepted over the codefendant Fata's cordless telephone. The defendant failed to demonstrate that he was a party to any of those intercepted conversations or that he had a proprietary interest in the premises (see, People v. Marans, 127 A.D.2d 795; People v. La Rocca, 112 A.D.2d 1010; see also, People v. Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351). In any event, assuming arguendo that the defendant does have standing, suppression was properly denied for the reasons stated in People v. Fata (supra).
We find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.