—[*1]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered March 25, 2003, convicting him of gang assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt of gang assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.06). The jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendant and the codefendant were in a position to render immediate assistance to their accomplice and, therefore, posed a sufficient threat of additional violence so as to satisfy the aggravating element necessary to sustain the conviction of gang assault in the second degree (see People v Marquez, 298 AD2d 407, 408 [2002]; cf. People v Hedgeman, 70 NY2d 533 [1987]; People v Carr-El, 287 AD2d 731, 732 [2001], affd 99 NY2d 546 [2002]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant's arguments regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, any prejudice that may have resulted from the challenged remarks was alleviated when the trial court [*2]sustained the defendant's objections and provided curative instructions to the jury (see People v Burrell, 178 AD2d 422 [1991]). To the extent that any alleged inappropriate remark remained unaddressed, it was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v Stith, 291 AD2d 576 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.