DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the identification by the complainant was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crime of robbery in the second degree is without merit. An identification by a single witness can be sufficient to support a criminal conviction ( see People v. Fermin, 235 A.D.2d 328). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 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, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v. Davis, 220 A.D.2d 525).
The defendant's contention that reversal is required as a result of a remark made during the People's summation regarding sentencing is also without merit. The court properly sustained the defendant's objection to the remark and subsequently gave the jury appropriate curative instructions. Under the circumstances, the defendant was not prejudiced by the remark ( see People v. Tosca, 98 N.Y.2d 660, 661; People v. Hornedo, 303 A.D.2d 602, 603, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 595).
PRUDENTI, P.J., S. MILLER, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.