Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the prosecution's motion to consolidate for a single trial two indictments charging three unrelated crimes (see, CPL 200.20, [4], [5]). We find, however, that the trial court properly weighed the public interest in avoiding duplicative, lengthy and expensive trials against the defendant's interest in being protected from an unfair advantage in favor of the People (see, People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 8). The record indicates an overwhelming amount of evidence against the defendant on all three counts, including simultaneous confessions to all three crimes (see, People v. Hallingquest, 79 A.D.2d 1010; see also, People v. Mack, 111 A.D.2d 186, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 616; People v. Stewart, 105 A.D.2d 858). Further, each crime was separately presented and proved, the defendant had ample opportunity to defend each count, and the task of considering and deciding three separate counts was not overly burdensome or confusing to the jury (cf., People v. Shapiro, 50 N.Y.2d 747).
In addition, the defendant, who had five prior felony convictions, was properly adjudicated a persistent felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.10). We find no merit to the contention that the sentence imposed was excessive. Lawrence, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.