Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims that the prosecutor conducted improper cross-examinations and an improper summation are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05). In the few instances when the defendant did object, he either made only general objections or failed to request a curative instruction when an objection was sustained ( see People v Aponte, 28 AD3d 672; People v Haripersaud, 24 AD3d 468, 469; People v Portalatin, 18 AD3d 673, 674). In any event, to the extent that any of the questioning or comments made during summation were improper, any error was harmless ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237; People v Colon, 43 AD3d 951; People v Love, 37 AD3d 618, 619; People v Frazier, 35 AD3d 759, 759-760).
The defendant's challenge in his supplemental pro se brief to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05) and, in any event, are without merit.