Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony, as the police officers had probable cause to believe that the defendant had harassed one of the victims as she walked to her friend's house in the early morning hours ( see, People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423). Moreover, the court properly granted the People's request to obtain a blood sample from the defendant for the purpose of performing DNA testing, as probable cause existed to believe that he had raped another victim on an earlier date ( see, Matter of Abe A., 56 N.Y.2d 288, 291; People v. King, 232 A.D.2d 111, 116; People v. Bigelow, supra).
There is an ample basis in the record for this Court to conclude that, after having adjourned the case for trial on several occasions on the defendant's account, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to grant the adjournment which the defendant requested on the eve of trial.
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and McGinity, JJ., concur.