It is not disputed that at the time of his escape he was under sentence for two other felonies. He contends the omission of the sentencing Judge to order that the second sentence be served successively presumes its term to be concurrent. In the situation presented the statute prescribes an automatic rule which makes the term of imprisonment imposed upon the subsequent felony conviction consecutive. (Penal Law, § 2190, subd. 2; People v. Ingber, 248 N.Y. 302; Matter of Browne v. Board of Parole, 10 N.Y.2d 116.) Subdivision 4 of the same section has no application to the instant facts. Our consideration of the appeal on the merits does not imply that coram nobis is the appropriate remedy for the relief sought. Obviously it is not. (People v. Sullivan, 3 N.Y.2d 196.)
Order unanimously affirmed, without costs.