Judgment affirmed.
Contrary to defendant's contention that the requirements of Penal Law § 130.16 were not met, we note that "independent corroborative evidence need not prove defendant's guilt to a moral certainty, but need simply harmonize with the victim's testimony in such a manner as to furnish the necessary connection between the defendant and the crime" (People v. De Vyver, 89 A.D.2d 745, 747). Those requirements were met at bar. Defendant failed to preserve his claim of repugnancy for our review (see, People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 1050). In any event, "viewed in light of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury", the verdicts of guilty of sexual abuse in the first and second degrees and not guilty of certain counts of sodomy in the first and second degrees were not repugnant (People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 4). Further, defendant's sentence on the sodomy counts of concurrent terms of imprisonment of 8 1/3 to 25 years (and lesser concurrent terms on the other counts) was neither an abuse of discretion nor a sentence which we choose to modify in our interest of justice jurisdiction (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80) in light of the nature of defendant's crimes, their frequency and the sheer number of times they occurred over a period of years (see, People v. Anderson, 99 A.D.2d 560; People v. Corbett, 68 A.D.2d 772, affd 52 N.Y.2d 714). We have reviewed defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.