Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Alice R.B. Cullina of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John Latella, J.), rendered April 25, 2018, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, attempted assault in the second degree (two counts), aggravated criminal contempt, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because the Supreme Court permitted four witnesses to testify that they believed the defendant to be the person depicted in surveillance video footage is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by that testimony, as there was a basis for concluding that the witnesses were more likely than the jury to correctly identify the defendant in the video footage (see People v Fernandez, 210 AD3d 693, 695 [2022]; People v Minchala, 194 AD3d 754, 756 [2021]).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly admitted a recording of a 911 call into evidence under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Huertas, 186 AD3d 731, 733 [2020], affd 38 NY3d 1129 [2022]; People v Legere, 81 AD3d 746, 749-750 [2011]). Moreover, the admission of the recording of the 911 call did not violate the defendant's right of confrontation because the declarant's statements were not testimonial (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]; People v Nieves-Andino, 9 NY3d 12, 15 [2007]). The information conveyed by the declarant during the 911 call was for the purpose of seeking police intervention and did not result from structured questioning (see People v Gittens, 214 AD3d 670, 671 [2023]; People v Thomas, 187 AD3d 949, 950 [2020]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [2]) and petit larceny (id. § 155.25) beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 [*2]NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to all counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during the opening statement and summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the challenged statements, seek curative instructions, or move for a mistrial on the grounds raised on appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hengjun Chao, 217 AD3d 777, 778-779 [2023]). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks, for the most part, constituted fair comment on the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Fuhrtz, 115 AD3d 760 [2014]; People v Birot, 99 AD3d 933 [2012]), or were fair response to defense counsel's comments during summation (see People v Adamo, 309 AD2d 808 [2003]), and any improper statements "were not so flagrant or pervasive" as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution because, viewed in totality, the record reflects that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Connolly, J.P., Maltese, Wooten and Dowling, JJ., concur.