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 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), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111, 1112).
The defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation comments are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641) and, in any event, without merit. The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the Supreme Court improperly interfered with the examination of witnesses ( see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887; People v Perez, 30 AD3d 542; People v Bembury, 14 AD3d 575, 576). In any event, the court's participation was not improper ( see People v Mills, 212 AD2d 550).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).