The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion based on the People's summation. The challenged remarks generally constituted fair comment on the evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, made in response to defense arguments, and the summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884). To the extent that any portions of the summation could be viewed as improper, the court's curative actions sufficed to prevent any prejudice (see People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865).
The court properly ruled that defendant opened the door to uncharged crimes evidence that the court had previously precluded (see People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451-452). Moreover, this evidence was not unduly prejudicial.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.