The procedure by which the sentencing court determined that defendant was eligible for consecutive sentences did not violate the principles of Apprendi v New Jersey ( 530 US 466). In imposing consecutive sentences for defendant's convictions of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree and a concurrent sentence on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, the court did not engage in any fact-finding, but instead made a legal determination based on facts already found by the jury ( see People v Lloyd, 23 AD3d 296, lv denied 6 NY3d 755 [2005]; United States v White, 240 F3d 127 [2d Cir 2001], cert denied 540 US 857; cf. People v Parks, 95 NY2d 811).