Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's contentions regarding the prosecutor's summation during the trial of Indictment No. 2620/91 are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; see also, People v Neal, 200 A.D.2d 773). In any event, although several of the prosecutor's comments would have been better left unsaid, they do not warrant reversal of the defendant's judgment of conviction, and the other remarks were fair comment on the evidence, or a fair response to the defense counsel's summation (see, People v Pilgrim, 208 A.D.2d 868; see also, People v Neal, supra).
The defendant's sentences are not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit (cf., People v Wylie, 180 A.D.2d 774, 775; People v Rosario, 193 A.D.2d 445, 446). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.