Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the jury verdict was inconsistent is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. McFadden, 194 A.D.2d 566). In any event, the verdict was not inconsistent as it was possible for the defendant to have had two different mental states at two different times. Furthermore, it was not unreasonable for the jury to find that the defendant acted recklessly in shooting one victim and acted intentionally in shooting the other (see, People v. Tankleff; 199 A.D.2d 550).
The defendant's contention that he was entitled to a jury charge concerning the defense of temporary and lawful possession of a weapon is also without merit as a reasonable view of the evidence could not have supported such a finding (see, People v. Snyder, 73 N.Y.2d 900).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his intent with regard to the conviction of assault in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review because the motion for a trial order of dismissal lacked specificity (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v McGee, 204 A.D.2d 353). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
The imposition of consecutive sentences was not illegal since separate acts caused the assault and manslaughter (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Jackson, 219 A.D.2d 675).
Finally, the defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.