Opinion
April 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that several comments made by the prosecutor at summation deprived him of a fair trial. However, all but one contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 819; People v Giles, 87 A.D.2d 636) and that contention does not warrant reversal because the court struck the challenged comment and gave immediate instructions curing any prejudicial effect that may have resulted therefrom (see, People v Lamour, 203 A.D.2d 388, 389; People v Cuevas, 99 A.D.2d 553).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Jackson, 208 A.D.2d 862; People v Applegate, 176 A.D.2d 888; People v Henry, 116 A.D.2d 737, 738; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.