Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's possession of a weapon on the day it was used to shoot the complainant, and his possession of another weapon on the day he was arrested, constituted two separate acts, and therefore the Supreme Court could properly impose consecutive sentences for each act (see, People v Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208, 212; People v Cahill, 167 A.D.2d 411; People v Wallace, 155 A.D.2d 708, 710; People v Sanchez, 131 A.D.2d 606, 609).
The defendant's other contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745, 746; see also, People v Ingram, 67 N.Y.2d 897, 899), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.