—[*1] Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Julie A. Kleeman of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Joanna Cohn Weiss of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered June 21, 2005, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentencing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to object or raised only general objections to the prosecutor's summation remarks (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]; People v Martinez, 17 AD3d 484, 485 [2005]). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defense counsel's summation (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Carter, 36 AD3d 624 [2007]; People v Martinez, 17 AD3d at 485; People v Rhodes, 11 AD3d 487, 488 [2004]; People v Valdes, 291 AD2d 513, 514 [2002]). "To the extent that the prosecutor may have exceeded the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, any error was harmless" (People v Carter, 36 AD3d 624, 624 [2007]; see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Carni, JJ., concur.