DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's questioning on cross-examination and suggestion during summation that the defendant tailored his testimony after a discussion with his attorney during the luncheon recess, was not unduly prejudicial (see Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61; People v. Lowery, 281 A.D.2d 491). The prosecutor properly attacked the defendant's credibility, and his comments on summation were fair responses to the defense counsel's summation (see People v. Banks, 258 A.D.2d 525, 526; People v. Elliot, 216 A.D.2d 576). As such, the prosecutor's questions and remarks were within the bounds of fair comment.
The court also properly exercised its discretion in preventing defense counsel from straying from the evidence on summation (see People v. Charles, 61 N.Y.2d 321, 329; People v. Laboy, 202 A.D.2d 325).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and MASTRO, JJ., concur.