Opinion
August 10, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence that the defendant was the individual who sold heroin to undercover Police Officer Forte was clear and strong. Forte had an opportunity to view the defendant from a close distance for approximately two minutes during the sale, and identified him approximately five minutes thereafter when he was arrested. There were no significant gaps or inconsistencies in her testimony. Accordingly, the evidence established the defendant's guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15; People v. Chang, 129 A.D.2d 722).
Most of the defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were not raised at trial, and consequently are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Dordal, 55 N.Y.2d 954, 956, rearg dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Chang, supra). Other than those few remarks by the prosecutor to which the trial court sustained the defendant's objections, the remainder of the prosecutor's summation constituted either fair comment on the evidence or a fair response to the defense summation (see, People v. Reichbach, 131 A.D.2d 515; People v. Seldon, 128 A.D.2d 742). Moreover, the defendant was not prejudiced by any of the prosecutor's statements (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 401; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 36, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.