Opinion
December 9, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Contrary to defendant's claim, the hearing court properly admitted the complaining witness' identification into evidence inasmuch as there was nothing suggestive in the photographic and lineup identifications of defendant. We also note that the sentencing court's imposition of consecutive sentences was proper inasmuch as the crimes of which defendant stands convicted were separate and distinct acts (see, People v Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839; People v Counts, 97 A.D.2d 772; People v Dorsey, 79 A.D.2d 611; People v Brown, 66 A.D.2d 223; People v McMillan, 61 A.D.2d 800). Lazer, J.P., Thompson, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.