It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [2]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [4]). Contrary to the contentions of defendant, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support the conviction, and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by two instances of prosecutorial misconduct during summation ( see CPL 470.05). Defendant failed to object to the first alleged improper comment on summation, and defendant did not avail himself of County Court's offer to provide a curative instruction with respect to the second alleged improper comment or seek any alternative relief ( see generally People v. Vasquez, 298 AD2d 230, 231, lv denied 100 NY2d 543; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [a]). We agree with defendant that the court erred in admitting, as an excited utterance, the hearsay statement made by a witness to a police officer ( see People v. Johnson, 1 NY3d 302, 307; People v. Crombleholme, 8 AD3d 1068, 1070, lv denied 3 NY3d 672). We conclude, however, that the error is harmless ( see People v. Kello, 96 NY2d 740, 744). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.