Opinion
May 18, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the indictment must be dismissed because he was not permitted to testify before the Grand Jury is without merit. The motion to dismiss the indictment was untimely and, therefore, the defendant waived his right to challenge the indictment on this ground ( see, CPL 190.50 [c]; People v. Anderson, 192 A.D.2d 714; People v. Maldonado, 176 A.D.2d 586; People v. Hamilton, 165 A.D.2d 908; People v. Rafajlovski, 152 A.D.2d 608; People v. Moore, 145 A.D.2d 510; People v. Hunter, 131 A.D.2d 877, 878; People v. MacCall, 122 A.D.2d 79).
The defendant's contentions that his arrest in the hallway outside his apartment was unlawful, and that testimony concerning a subsequent lineup identification of him should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest, are unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant did not argue at the suppression hearing that he had an expectation of privacy in the hallway of the apartment building ( see, CPL 470.05; see, e.g., People v. Vasquez, 66 N.Y.2d 968, 969, cert denied 475 U.S. 1109; People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 1012-1013; People v. Cea, 237 A.D.2d 617, 618; People v. Alexander, 226 A.D.2d 548, 549). In any event, the defendant's arrest in the hallway of his apartment building did not violate Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573) since the defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy there ( see, People v. Minley, 68 N.Y.2d 952, 953-954; People v. Powell, 54 N.Y.2d 524, 531; People v. Coppin, 202 A.D.2d 279, 289; People v. Lewis, 172 A.D.2d 775; People v. Crutch, 161 A.D.2d 401; People v. Marzan, 161 A.D.2d 416; People v. Proctor, 151 A.D.2d 788; People v. Anderson, 146 A.D.2d 638, 639-640; People v. Brown, 144 A.D.2d 975, 976). The record supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant voluntarily exited his apartment and was not threatened or coerced to leave the apartment.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.