Opinion
June 3, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.).
By failing to object, by failing to make specific objections, and by failing to request any further relief after objections were sustained, defendant has not preserved his present challenges to the People's summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged portions of the People's summation could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
Defendant's assault on the victim by cutting her face with a broken bottle as she tried to evade him on the rooftop, causing permanent disfigurement, was completed before the subsequent rape and sodomy, which were perpetrated by means of other acts of forcible compulsion, and the original assault was not a material element of those crimes. Under these circumstances, the court lawfully imposed consecutive sentences for defendant's separate and distinct acts of assault, rape and sodomy ( see, People v. Eades, 198 A.D.2d 905, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 804; People v. Brown, 66 A.D.2d 223, 226).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.