DECISION ORDER
The law is well settled that the nature and extent of cross examination are matters within the trial court's sound discretion ( see People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 56; People v. McGriff, 201 A.D.2d 672, 673). Here, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant's girlfriend about the removal of the girlfriend's children from her custody by the Nassau County child protective services agency due to physical abuse ( see People v. Ayala, 280 A.D.2d 552; People v. English, 126 A.D.2d 738; People v. Batista, 113 A.D.2d 890).
The defendant's arguments regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Hirsch, 299 A.D.2d 559; People v. Mejias, 296 A.D.2d 583, 584). In any event, the challenged remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence ( see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105), were responsive to arguments presented in the defense counsel's summation ( see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396), or were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
SANTUCCI, J.P., McGINITY, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.