The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. Based upon the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendant possessed a gun with intent to use it unlawfully against another prior to and separate from the act which resulted in the conviction of manslaughter in the second degree (see, People v. Fecunda, 226 A.D.2d 474; People v. James, 221 A.D.2d 658; People v. James, 211 A.D.2d 824; People v. Mabry, 151 A.D.2d 507). The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The imposition of a consecutive sentence for the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was permissible. The defendant's possession of the weapon was a separate act which occurred when the codefendant handed him the gun after the robbery, and shooting had been completed (see, People v. James, 221 A.D.2d 658). Thompson, J. P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.