Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendant from calling a witness at trial to present certain evidence since the only purpose of the evidence would have been to impeach the credibility of the arresting police officers on a collateral matter ( see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 247-248; People v Fowler, 61 AD3d 698, 698; People v Rendon, 301 AD2d 665; People v Ragland, 240 AD2d 598).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's comments during summation did not deprive him of a fair trial, as they were a fair response to the defendant's attack on the credibility of the police witnesses ( see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Avila, 69 AD3d 642; People v Robinson, 63 AD3d 531, 532; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811; People v Vaughn, 209 AD2d 459).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).