MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
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 driving while intoxicated (DWI) as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192; § 1193 [1] [c] [i]), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (§ 511 [a]), reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20), and various traffic infractions. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that he operated a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition ( see People v. Smith, 306 A.D.2d 858, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 587; People v. Panek, 305 A.D.2d 1098, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 623; People v. Thompson, 299 A.D.2d 889, 890, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 585; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the special information is not preserved for our review ( see People v. McDonald, 295 A.D.2d 756, 757, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 711; People v. Mienko, 282 A.D.2d 283, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 904; People v. Torres, 96 A.D.2d 604, 605; see generally People v. Finger, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 895; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19).
Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation. The prosecutor's remarks constituted fair comment on defendant's refusal to submit to a breath test ( see generally People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109-110; People v. Root, 298 A.D.2d 855, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 564), more particularly, on the inference of consciousness of guilt that may be drawn from one's refusal after receiving the appropriate warnings ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [f]; see also People v. Gallup, 302 A.D.2d 681, 683, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 594; People v. Hasenflue, 252 A.D.2d 829, 831-832, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 982; People v. D'Angelo, 244 A.D.2d 788, 789, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 890). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.