Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the People failed to disprove his defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Alvarez, 201 A.D.2d 487; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the People disproved the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the testimony of the People's eyewitness, the jury could have concluded that the defendant shot the victim after obtaining sole control of the gun, when the defendant no longer had a reasonable belief that he was in mortal danger and could have retreated in safety (see, People v Alvarez, supra; People v Ramsay, 199 A.D.2d 428). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's comments on summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bruen, 136 A.D.2d 648). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks were fair comment and did not constitute improper vouching (see, People v Long, 205 A.D.2d 804; People v Stephens, 161 A.D.2d 740). Finally, the defendant's challenge to the mandatory surcharge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Santos, 176 A.D.2d 245; People v Higgins, 137 A.D.2d 620), and in any event, premature (see, People v Burke, 204 A.D.2d 345). Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.