Opinion
May 7, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that during the People's case, a detective gave improper bolstering testimony (see, People v. Cruz, 100 A.D.2d 882). However, this argument has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Armstrong, 122 A.D.2d 218, 219). In any event, any error in this regard must be considered harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
With respect to certain alleged improprieties in the prosecutor's summation, no objections were made thereto. Consequently, the defendant's arguments in this regard are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the defendant was not substantially prejudiced by any of the prosecutor's comments (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 36, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
Finally, we are of the view that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Brown, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.