Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is modified, on the law, to the extent that all of the sentences shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to be present at the proceeding at which he was found competent to stand trial. The defendant had no right to be present since there was no hearing and no significant factual inquiry (see, People v Williams, 85 N.Y.2d 945, 947).
The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is also without merit. The record demonstrates that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We find, however, that the imposition of a consecutive sentence for the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was improper pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2). The record reveals that both of the defendant's convictions of criminal possession of a weapon were part of a single, continuous act (see, People v Sessoms, 200 A.D.2d 850; People v Bolus, 185 A.D.2d 1007; People v Riley-James, 168 A.D.2d 740). O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.