Opinion
March 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the propriety of the prosecutor's remarks on summation (see, CPL 470.05) and, in any event, her comments were either within the bounds of permissible advocacy, or in answer to issues raised by the defense, or harmless error (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v Jackson, 124 A.D.2d 823).
The defendant's claim that the court's charge was unbalanced is also unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the charge as a whole, the jury was properly instructed about the rules to be applied in arriving at its verdict and none of the claimed errors warrant reversal of the defendant's conviction in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 832; People v Russo, 133 A.D.2d 477; People v Jackson, 45 A.D.2d 828, affd 39 N.Y.2d 64).
In light of the defendant's numerous prior convictions, the sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.