Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. However, 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.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to issue a circumstantial evidence charge since the evidence was both direct and circumstantial ( see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990; People v Martinez, 185 AD2d 365).
The challenged portion of the prosecutor's summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom ( see People v Bianchini, 309 AD2d 652; People v Washington, 227 AD2d 126).
The defendant's remaining contention raised in point three of his brief is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.