We find, as the People concede, that defendant's statement concerning the robbery weapon was taken in violation of his right to remain silent. Nevertheless, we find that there was no reasonable possibility that the statement could have affected the verdict (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242), in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, which included the inherent implausibility of defendant's testimony that the robberies were really employee frauds, and the impressive array of prosecution witnesses contradicting this defense in every respect.
Finally, defendant lawfully received consecutive sentences for the separate robberies of two persons during one of the incidents (People v. Truesdell, 70 N.Y.2d 809, 811).
Finally, in the circumstances, we do not find that the imposition of consecutive sentences was an abuse of discretion. (See, People v. Dawson, 197 A.D.2d 367.)
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.