Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
Since the defendant had no privacy right in the apartment where he was arrested, he lacked the requisite standing to contest the search of the premises (see, People v Rodriguez, 69 N.Y.2d 159; People v Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160).
We further conclude that the trial court's charge as to circumstantial evidence adequately apprised the jury of the standard to be utilized in reaching its verdict (see, People v Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441-442; People v Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024; People v Borazzo, 137 A.D.2d 96, 100-101; People v Fernandez, 137 A.D.2d 709, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1026).
While the court's instruction addressed to the defendant's failure to testify in his own behalf at trial was improper (see, People v Reid, 135 A.D.2d 753, 754), reversal is not warranted since there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant's conviction and, consequently, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237; People v Kimbrough, 134 A.D.2d 618, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1007; People v Morris, 129 A.D.2d 591; cf., People v Reid, supra).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.