Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although it was error to admit the statements of the nontestifying codefendants (see, Cruz v New York, 481 U.S. 186, on remand 70 N.Y.2d 733), we conclude that the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, their identification of the defendant, and the forensic evidence connecting the defendant to the crimes constituted overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
There was no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had the codefendants' statements not been admitted. The case at bar is parallel with People v West ( 72 N.Y.2d 941), in which the admission of the codefendant's statement was found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, we find that the admission of the codefendants' statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v West, supra; People v Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750; People v Martin, 149 A.D.2d 534; People v Ortiz, 137 A.D.2d 727).
Moreover, the trial court did not err in refusing to charge petit larceny and assault in the third degree as lesser included offenses. There was no reasonable view of the evidence which would have supported the submission of those charges (see, CPL 300.50; People v Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61; People v Wedgeworth, 104 A.D.2d 915).
In light of the brutality of the crime, we find that the sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). The separate and distinct acts of assault justified the imposition of consecutive sentences (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v Walsh, 44 N.Y.2d 631). Kooper, J.P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.