Opinion
February 17, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting the provision providing that the terms of imprisonment imposed on the sodomy counts are to run consecutively to the terms of imprisonment imposed on the rape counts, and substituting therefor a provision that said terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently to each other. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The defendant having expressed no dissatisfaction with the trial court's voir dire and having failed to object or take exception to the court's determination that the 10-year-old complainant was competent to give sworn testimony at the trial, his contention that the voir dire was inadequate and, hence, that the court's determination that she was competent to testify was erroneous, has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Johnson, 185 N.Y. 219). In any event, we find that the voir dire of the complainant was proper (cf., People v. Ranum, 122 A.D.2d 959).
Viewing the evidence adduced in the light most favorable to the People, as we must, it cannot be said that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence (see, People v Bigelow, 106 A.D.2d 448). While the testimony of the 10-year-old complainant was uncorroborated, it was legally sufficient to support the verdict. The credibility of that testimony was for the jury to determine, and, although it did contain some minor inconsistencies, there is no basis in the record to warrant this court's interference with that determination (see, People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755; People v. Bigelow, supra; People v. Monaco, 93 A.D.2d 823).
Under the circumstances of this case, and given the defendant's age, background, and his lack of any prior criminal history, the sentence is modified to the extent indicated.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for our review. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.