Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial because the court permitted a police detective to testify about the roles of participants in a street-level narcotics sale is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872; People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542). In any event, given that the theory of the prosecution was that the defendant and a codefendant acted in concert in the sale of narcotics, the challenged testimony was not improper ( see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 505).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial, as he failed to object to the subject remarks ( see CPL 470.05; People v Romero, 7 NY3d at 912; People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542). In any event, the challenged remarks did not exceed the bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument and were fair comment upon the evidence ( cf. People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179, 189-190; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109).