Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of improper cross-examination and summation remarks made by the prosecutor are without merit. The defendant "opened the door" to questions with respect to his prior conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance by testifying that he had never sold drugs ( People v Jones, 278 AD2d 246, 248, citing People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 646; see People v Thomas, 47 AD3d 850, 851; People v Marable, 33 AD3d 723, 725). Furthermore, the challenged comments in the prosecutor's summation regarding the defendant's credibility constituted fair comment on the evidence ( see People v Murphy, 178 AD2d 615; People v Merchant, 150 AD2d 730, 731). In addition, the prosecutor's comment that the defendant had the benefit of hearing the prosecution's witnesses and reviewing the police paperwork before testifying was permissible ( see Portuondo v Agard, 529 US 61, 67-68; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d 768, 769; People v Siriani, 27 AD3d 670; People v Portalatin, 18 AD3d 673, 674; People v Lowery, 281 AD2d 491, 491-492).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit ( see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v James, 72 AD3d 844).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).