Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in permitting the People to introduce into evidence a videotape which showed the defendant displaying a chrome-colored revolver shortly before the shooting ( see People v Webb, 60 AD3d 1291, 1292). We decline to reach the defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to the alleged erroneous admission into evidence of a certain letter written by the defendant, since the letter was never actually admitted into evidence at trial ( see People v Steed, 222 AD2d 536; People v Wilson, 131 AD2d 526). Any cross-examination of the defendant about the contents of the letter was a proper response to the testimony elicited on direct examination ( see generally People v Chaitin, 61 NY2d 683; People v West, 237 AD2d 470, 471). Insofar as the defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are based upon matter debtors the record, they are not reviewable on this appeal ( see People v Tillman, 74 AD3d 1251; People v Dunbar, 74 AD3d 1227).

The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation statements deprived him of a fair trial is also without merit. Viewed in the context of the entire summation and trial ( see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401), the challenged remarks were fair response to the defendant's summation ( see People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, 77-78; People v Martinez, 27 AD3d 665, 666; People v West, 237 AD2d 470, 472), fair comment on the evidence ( see People v Campbell, 29 AD3d 601), or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and the court's curative instructions ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242). The defendant's remaining contentions raised in his supplemental pro se brief are without merit.

of the summation, moved for a mistrial, which the trial court denied in part because it found that the prosecutor, in challenging the defendant's arguments, had not vouched for the credibility of the People's witnesses ( see CPL 470.05; cf. People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953; People v Perez, 18 AD3d 480; People v Powell, 4 AD3d 489). Moreover, to the extent that the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review certain challenges to the prosecutor's comments, we review those claims in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [a]; People v Brown, 26 AD3d 392, 393; People v Smith, 288 AD2d 496). Many of the prosecutor's summation comments were proper, as they were a fair response to the defense counsel's summation and a fair comment on the evidence ( see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399, 401; People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, 77-78; People v Woodson, 31 AD3d 678, lv denied 7 NY3d 871; People v Martinez, 27 AD3d 665, 666; People v Mattia, 8 AD3d 299, 299-300; People v West, 237 AD2d 470, 472). Any prejudice that may have resulted from the prosecutor's vouching for the credibility of the People's witnesses based on the statement that the witnesses could not have been mistaken in their identification of the defendant was alleviated when the trial court sustained the defendant's objections and provided curative instructions to the jury ( see People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300; People v Williams, 14 AD3d 519; People v Efferson, 300 AD2d 674; People v Cabrera, 272 AD2d 623). To the extent that any alleged inappropriate comment remained unaddressed, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242; see also People v Dardain, 226 AD2d 551; People v Elliot, 216 AD2d 576; People v James, 162 AD2d 618).

The trial court providently exercised its discretion when, over the defendant's objection, it permitted the prosecution to recall Officer McGrath as a rebuttal witness on the issue of the defendant's intoxication. The officer's rebuttal testimony countered an affirmative fact raised by the defendant's own testimony and did not merely bolster or repeat the officer's testimony (see, People v. Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335; Capone v. Gannon, 150 A.D.2d 749; Kapinos v. Alvarado, 143 A.D.2d 332). Moreover, the defendant opened the door to this line of inquiry by cross-examining the officer and by his own testimony as to the issue of intoxication (see, People v. West, 237 A.D.2d 470).

The defendant's contentions that two comments made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error are unpreserved for appellate review, since only the codefendant objected to the first comment and no objections were made to the second comment (see, People v. Buckley, 75 N.Y.2d 843; People v. Teeter, 47 N.Y.2d 1002; People v. Lopez, 158 A.D.2d 623). In any event, the prosecutor's comments to the jury were proper rebuttals to the defense counsel's comments during summation (see, People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67; People v. West, 237 A.D.2d 470; People v. Sceravino, 193 A.D.2d 824). There is no merit to the defendant's contention that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence.

The trial court properly admitted expert testimony regarding "rape trauma syndrome" to aid the jury in understanding the unusual behavior of the victim after the rape had occurred (see, People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277). The defendant's contentions regarding certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839-840; People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944; People v. West, 237 A.D.2d 470, 472). In any event, no reversible error occurred (see, People v. Rivers, 266 A.D.2d 481).

Accordingly, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. West, 237 A.D.2d 470; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see, CPL 470.15[a]). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Initially, the court holds that the affidavit submitted by the defendant contains only hearsay allegations concerning the conversations between Christopher E. Reese and the person alleged to be Emma Fonville and is therefore insufficient to support the motion (see, People v. West,237 A.D.2d 470 |2d Dept. 1997); People v. Giuca, 78 A.D.3d 729 [2d Dept. 2010]; People v. Stevens, 275 A.D2d 902 |4th Dept. 2000]; People v. Ford, 46 N.Y.2d 1021 [1979]). Additionally, the unsworn affirmation of Chavon Greene does not support defendant's motion pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.30 (1).