Opinion
January 22, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the prosecutor impermissibly elicited testimony concerning his post-arrest silence. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Loaiza, 201 A.D.2d 587). In any event, any error in this regard was, under the circumstances, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Loaiza, supra).
The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's remarks on summation is similarly unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Sanchez, 197 A.D.2d 548). In any event, the prosecutor's comments constituted a fair response to defense counsel's challenge to the credibility of the People's witnesses (see, People v Long, 205 A.D.2d 804; People v Russo, 201 A.D.2d 512, affd 85 N.Y.2d 872).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, CPL 470.15; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.