The verdict as to all three counts was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Issues concerning credibility and the evaluation of medical testimony were properly placed before the jury and we see no reason to disturb its determinations.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion made when a police witness referred to a statement by defendant for which notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 had not been provided. The statement was not damaging and the court's curative instructions provided an adequate remedy.
The court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 147).
The imposition of consecutive sentences on the rape and sexual abuse convictions was proper because the sex acts were sufficiently separate (see, e.g., People v. Willard, 226 A.D.2d 1014, 1020, appeal dismissed, 88 N.Y.2d 943). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion and find that the sentence was not based on any improper criteria.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.