PEOPLE v. PEREZ

The order of the same court dated March 20, 1989, denying defendant's pro se CPL 440.10 motion, is unanimously affirmed.

The jury's findings are adequately supported by the record and will not be disturbed. The testimony reveals that defendant and his accomplices were identified by the complainant as his assailants several minutes after the armed robbery which was perpetrated under favorable lighting conditions.

Contrary to defendant's claims in his pro se supplemental brief, the record sufficiently demonstrates that trial counsel provided competent and effective representation (People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Further, the "no inference" charge was not so extensive as to draw the jury's attention to defendant's failure to testify (People v Tirado, 158 A.D.2d 564).

As conceded by the People, under the circumstances, the sentence imposed upon defendant as a result of his conviction for the crime of robbery in the second degree may not run consecutively to the sentence imposed for his conviction for the crime of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 70.25). Further, in the exercise of discretion, we direct that all the sentences imposed herein run concurrently.

We have considered defendant's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.