DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of assault in the second degree shall run concurrently with the terms of imprisonment imposed on the convictions of kidnapping in the first degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620 ), we find that it 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 verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5]).
The Supreme Court properly rejected the defendant's request for a hearing pursuant to Frye v. United States (293 F 1013 ) to determine the admissibility of expert testimony concerning the polymerase chain-reaction method (hereinafter the PCR method) of DNA testing. The reliability of the PCR method has gained general acceptance in the scientific community (see, People v. Morales, 227 A.D.2d 648 ;People v. Garcia, 190 A.D.2d 749 ).
The defendant's convictions of assault in the second degree and kidnapping in the first degree were based on offenses committed through a single act. Thus, the Supreme Court should have made the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of assault in the second degree run concurrently with the terms of imprisonment imposed on the convictions of kidnapping in the first degree (see,Penal Law § 70.25[2]; People v. Ahedo, 229 A.D.2d 588 ).
The defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., ALTMAN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.