Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court improperly failed to conduct a Ventimiglia hearing ( see People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350) to determine the admissibility of certain testimony regarding a telephone call made by the defendant's friend to one of the complainants ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Cody, 149 AD2d 722). In any event, such testimony was properly introduced as some evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt ( see People v Plummer, 36 NY2d 161, 163-164; People v Almestica, 288 AD2d 483; People v Pitts, 218 AD2d 715). Additionally, the Supreme Court gave the jury proper limiting instructions ( see People v Almestica, supra).
The defendant was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 714; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).