Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Parker, J), rendered December 16, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the *512denial, after a hearing (Gary, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence based on the plain view doctrine. That doctrine “rests on the premise that police should be able to seize incriminating evidence in plain view if they had the right to be where they were when they saw it” (People v Brown, 96 NY2d 80, 88 [2001]; see People v Diaz, 81 NY2d 106, 111 [1993]; People v Velasquez, 110 AD3d 835 [2013]). “[L]aw enforcement officers may properly seize an item in ‘plain view’ without a warrant if (i) they are lawfully in a position to observe the item; (ii) they have lawful access to the item itself when they seize it; and (iii) the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent” (People v Brown, 96 NY2d 80, 89 [2001]; see Horton v California, 496 US 128, 136-137 [1990]; People v Velasquez, 110 AD3d 835 [2013]).
Here, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that a police officer was lawfully present in the apartment building where the defendant resided (see People v Church, 217 AD2d 444 [1995]). The officer discovered the challenged physical evidence, a handgun and ammunition, in a gun box located in a common storage area accessible to anyone in the building. The box was not locked, and there was no indication that the defendant’s name or other personal identification, such as his apartment number, was on the box which would lead one who observed it to understand that it belonged to the defendant or a person living in his apartment (see People v Funches, 89 NY2d 1005, 1007 [1997]). The box was clearly marked “Smith and Wesson.” Under these circumstances, the distinctive label on the outside of the box “proclaim[ed] its contents” and, as such, made it immediately apparent to the officer that the box contained a firearm (Robbins v California, 453 US 420, 427 [1981]), thus authorizing the officer to seize the box without a warrant (see People v Velasquez, 110 AD3d at 836; People v Batista, 261 AD2d 218 [1999]; People v Aqudelo, 150 AD2d 284 [1989]; cf. People v Dobson, 41 AD3d 496, 496-497 [2007]). Furthermore, since the gun box, “by its very nature, could not support any reasonable expectation of privacy because its content could be inferred from its outward appearance” (People v Dobson, 41 AD3d at 497; see Arkansas v Sanders, 442 US 753, 764-765 [1979], overruled in part by California v Acevedo, 500 US 565 [1991]), the officer lawfully opened the box, and discovered the handgun and ammunition inside.
The defendant’s contention that certain summation remarks *513made by the prosecutor deprived him of due process is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, without merit.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Skelos, J.E, Dillon and Roman, JJ., concur.