Opinion
March 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rienzi, J.).
Ordered, that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's argument concerning the propriety of certain remarks made during the course of the prosecutor's summation are in large part unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Gibbs, 59 N.Y.2d 930, 932; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v Anderson, 161 A.D.2d 719; People v Etheridge, 160 A.D.2d 1020; People v Liverpool, 160 A.D.2d 894). These claims are not worthy of review in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The few instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct which were preserved for appellate review as a matter of law, considered in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, were clearly harmless (see generally, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.