Opinion
April 27, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that all of the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the then eight-year-old complainant to testify under oath. The court's preliminary examination of the child adequately demonstrated that she understood the nature of testifying under oath and that she was competent to be sworn as a witness (see, CPL 60.20). Under the circumstances, the court's determination on this issue should not be disturbed (see, People v Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560; People v Chesnard, 175 A.D.2d 254; People v McDaniel, 165 A.D.2d 817; People v Rosado, 157 A.D.2d 754).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's convictions of sodomy by forcible compulsion under the seventh count and sodomy based on deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is less than eleven years old under the eighth count resulted from his commission of a single act and therefore the sentences imposed for these crimes must run concurrently (see, Penal Law § 70.25; § 130.50; People v Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit (see, People v Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Santucci, JJ., concur.