—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Supreme Court for resentencing in accordance with the following Memorandum: The indictments were properly consolidated because the counts alleged therein are “defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and consequently are the same or similar in law” (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]). The fact that the indictments accuse defendant of sex crimes against different victims does not preclude consolidation (see generally, People v Hall,
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that several of the counts fail to specify the date of the offense (see, People v Wood,
The sentencing minutes indicate that Supreme Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of 10 to 25 years upon defendant’s conviction of rape in the first degree under count three of indictment No. 409/98. The certificate of conviction, however, indicates that an indeterminate sentence of 10 to 20 years was imposed upon that count. Because of the discrepancy between the sentencing minutes and the certificate of conviction, the sentence imposed on count three of indictment No. 409/98 must be vacated and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for resentencing on that count (see, People v Ingram,
