The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury reasonably chose to credit the testimony of the complainant and to reject defendant's testimony, and we see no basis to disturb its credibility determinations.
Since defendant expressly agreed to the court's compromise ruling his Sandoval claim was affirmatively waived as well as being unpreserved for appellate review. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court properly considered the extent to which credibility would be an issue at trial, and the resulting ruling, permitting only the elicitation of defendant's conviction of an unspecified "crime" in 1978, for which he served six years in prison, did not unfairly prejudice defendant.
Consecutive sentences were properly imposed with respect to separate and distinct sexual acts (see, People v. Whitley, 211 A.D.2d 528, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 982). In light of defendant's criminal history, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.