Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court marshaled the evidence in an uneven manner has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Hatzpavlou, 157 A.D.2d 852; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248-252). In any event, this claim is meritless. Although trial courts must explain the application of the law to the facts, they need not refer to all of the evidence or explain all the inconsistencies therein (CPL 300.10; People v. Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 667). Considering that the court in the instant case clearly set forth the parties' general contentions, and in light of the relative brevity of the case, it cannot be said that any omission of certain isolated facts from the charge deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Williamson, 40 N.Y.2d 1073, 1074; People v. Gray, 144 A.D.2d 483; People v. McDonald, 144 A.D.2d 701; People v Richardson, 117 A.D.2d 825).
We also disagree with the defendant's contention that the imposition of consecutive sentences on each of the rape counts was impermissible. The record clearly demonstrates that each count of rape concerned a separate and distinct series of acts, each of which constituted a separate crime (see, 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; People v. Callace, 143 A.D.2d 1027). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.