Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the time frames of the crimes charged in the indictment, and as stated more specifically in the People's bill of particulars and amended bill of particulars, failed to conform to the proof at trial. In their testimony, the two victims, who were eight and ten years old, respectively, at the time of the crimes, repeatedly referred to time frames, in terms of events that occurred in their lives, to describe when each of the crimes occurred. Their mother then testified to supply dates for the occurrences to which the children referred.
We also find that the time frames for each of the offenses alleged, the longest of which was two and one-half months, were not excessive (see, People v Watt, 81 N.Y.2d 772, on remand 192 A.D.2d 65; People v Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.