It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not err in refusing to suppress his statement to a police investigator. The testimony of defendant at the suppression hearing that the statement was coerced by correction officers and thus was not voluntary presented a credibility issue that the suppression court was entitled to resolve against defendant ( see People v Collins, 302 AD2d 958, lv denied 99 NY2d 653). Here, "[t]he testimony of the [investigator] . . . supports the court's determination that defendant's statement[] [was] preceded by Miranda warnings and voluntarily made by defendant, without any promises, threats, or coercion on the part of [the correction officers]" ( People v Pennick, 2 AD3d 1427, 1428, lv denied 1 NY3d 632).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Livingston, 262 AD2d 786, 787-788, Iv denied 94 NY2d 881; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant preserved for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct on summation only with respect to two of the prosecutor's comments ( see CPL 470.05). In any event, that contention is without merit inasmuch as all of the prosecutor's allegedly improper comments were either a fair response to defense counsel's summation or fair comment on the evidence ( see People v Anderson, 52 AD3d 1320, 1321, Iv denied 11 NY3d 733).