Ordered that the order is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, it was not illegal for the court to impose consecutive sentences on the counts of grand larceny in the second degree, as each of those counts was based on separate and distinct acts (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208, 212; People v Williams, 155 A.D.2d 568; People v Mabry, 151 A.D.2d 507). The defendant's remaining contentions could have been raised on the direct appeal, as sufficient facts appeared on the record of the proceedings underlying the judgment to have permitted review thereof. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that those claims could not be raised on a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, CPL 440.10 [c]). Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Copertino, JJ., concur.