Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the court should have instructed the jury that the three robberies involved in this case were distinct and separate and that evidence of guilt as to one of the robberies could not be considered as evidence of guilt as to the other robberies. Since the defendant's identity was a primary issue at trial and the three robberies, all sharing the same distinctive modus operandi, were properly joined ( see, People v. Mack, 235 A.D.2d 548), any such charge would have been improper ( see, People v. Lewis, 175 A.D.2d 885).
The defendant's remaining contentions lack merit.
Mangano, P.J., Santucci, Joy and Lerner, JJ., concur.