Opinion
February 8, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by virtue of several improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation. While the prosecutor's comment made during his summation with regard to the defendant's postarrest silence may have been improper, any error which occurred must be deemed harmless in this case where the defendant's silence was mentioned only in a single, isolated comment, the defendant's objection to the comment was sustained by the trial court, and the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming (see, People v Reed, 120 A.D.2d 552; People v Mayrant, 109 A.D.2d 850; People v Boylan, 98 A.D.2d 779). With respect to the defendant's other claim of summation error, we note that this claim has not been preserved for appellate review since the prosecutor's comment was not objected to at trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v Willis, 107 A.D.2d 830), and, under the circumstances of this case, review in the interest of justice is not warranted.
We have reviewed the sentence imposed and find it to be fair and appropriate under the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.