Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
While the defendant correctly contends that the court erred in admitting certain testimony as "prompt outcry" evidence ( People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16), reversal is not warranted since the error was harmless ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). Similarly, to the extent that the prosecutor made improper remarks during opening statements and summation, the error was harmless ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 242).