Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the complainant did not sustain a "physical injury" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) was not raised at trial and, accordingly, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Garcia, 9 AD3d 470, 471). 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, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant sustained a "physical injury" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) ( see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445; People v Harvey, 309 AD2d 713; cf. Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198, 200; Matter of Ashley M., 35 AD3d 612, 613).
Moreover, the defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to object or raised only a general objection to the remarks ( see CPL 470.05; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394; People v Martinez, 17 AD3d 484, 485). In any event, the challenged remarks were a permissible response to the defense counsel's summation (see People v Carter, 36 AD3d 624; People v Martinez, 17 AD3d 484; People v Duplessis, 16 AD3d 846; People v Keller, 238 AD2d 758; People v Colonna, 135 AD2d 724).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.