Viewed as a whole, the court's instructions on accessorial liability conveyed the correct legal standards (see People v. Crayton, 278 A.D.2d 64,lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 782). The court also meaningfully responded to a jury note on the subject by repeating its original instructions (People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296).
The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation constituted fair comment on the evidence in response to defense arguments and there was no pattern of egregious misconduct (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).
We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the non-inclusory concurrent count (see People v. Spence, 290 A.D.2d 223,lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Kulakov, 278 A.D.2d 519, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 785).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.