Opinion
March 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred by trying together the various charges as to all three complainants is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the charges were joinable because they were defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and consequently were the same or similar in law (see, CPL 200.20 [c]). The fact that sex crimes were involved in all of the incidents does not provide a sufficient basis to require a severance (see, People v. Teleford, 134 A.D.2d 632, 633). In addition, the proof of the crimes was presented seperately, uncomplicated, and easily segregable in the minds of the jurors. The fact that the jury acquitted the defendant of all charges relating to one complainant and all charges relating to another incident with a second complainant demonstrates that the jury was able to segregate the evidence as to each count (see, People v. Hall, 169 A.D.2d 778, 779; People v. Streitferdt, 169 A.D.2d 171, 176).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Copertino, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.