Judgments and order affirmed.
We agree with Criminal Term that Penal Law § 70.25 (2-b) is not violative of the ex post facto prohibition of the U.S. Constitution, article I, § 10. The statute merely imposes a harsher sentence for criminal acts or omissions committed subsequent to its effective date; the effect of such a statute is not constitutionally proscribed (see, Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24; Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282; People v. Morse, 62 N.Y.2d 205, appeal dismissed sub nom. Vega v. New York, 469 U.S. 1186; People v. Brabham, 104 A.D.2d 1043; People v. Hicks, 99 A.D.2d 788). We also note that Criminal Term properly imposed the mandatory surcharge on each judgment (see, CPL 60.35). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.