Defendant's argument that the Trial Judge's interjection of questions improperly interfered with the examination of witnesses is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law for failure to object thereto (People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886, 887-888). In any event, were we to review the issue in the interest of justice, we would find that the Trial Judge acted within reasonable limits to clarify confusing testimony and elicit relevant facts (People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 55).
Further, in view of defendant's past record and the separate character of the two crimes of which he was convicted, it was not an abuse of discretion to impose consecutive sentences (see, People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305-306).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.