DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed on each conviction of sodomy in the first degree from 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment to 8 1/3 to 25 years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions concerning the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome are unpreserved for appellate review. These arguments were not raised in the trial court (see, People v. James, 262 A.D.2d 500; People v. Wilson, 225 A.D.2d 642; People v. Perez, 194 A.D.2d 812), and we decline to review them in the exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction.
Insofar as the defendant's contention of ineffective assistance of counsel can be reviewed on this record, we are satisfied that, under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of representation, the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court legally imposed consecutive sentences for his convictions of sodomy in the first degree under counts one, two, and three of the indictment, as each count involved a separate sexual act constituting a distinct offense (see, People v. White, 261 A.D.2d 653, 657-658; People v. Rivera, 186 A.D.2d 594, 596; Penal Law § 70.25).
However, the terms of imprisonment imposed on the defendant's convictions of sodomy in the first degree under counts one through six of the indictment were illegal and should be reduced from 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment to 8 1/3 to 25 years imprisonment. Since the crimes were committed in March 1995, the minimum term of imprisonment on these convictions should have been one-third of the maximum term, not one-half (see, Penal Law § 70.02, as amended by L 1995, ch 3, § 4; People v. Wade, ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Nov. 27, 2000]; People v. Glass, 242 A.D.2d 305). The terms of imprisonment imposed on the defendant's remaining convictions are legal, and the sentence, as modified, is not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).