ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the alleged improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation require reversal. The arguments concerning most of the remarks were not preserved for appellate review because the defendant either failed to object to the prosecutor's statements, made only a general objection, failed to request curative instructions, or moved only belatedly for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641, 642; People v. Dien, 77 N.Y.2d 885, 886; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 952; People v. Morris, 148 A.D.2d 552, 553). In any event, the summation must be examined in the context of that delivered by opposing counsel, and is proper if it is responsive to arguments and issues raised by the defense (see People v. Russo, 201 A.D.2d 512, 513, affd 85 N.Y.2d 872; People v. Torres, 121 A.D.2d 663, 664). Additionally, a prosecutor may engage in fair comment on the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Scotti, 220 A.D.2d 543; People v. Shepherd, 176 A.D.2d 369, 370). The prosecutor's remarks during summation in this case did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment allowed in closing argument (see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v. Harris, 209 A.D.2d 432). Rather, the challenged remarks constituted either fair comment upon the evidence presented (see People v. Ashwal, supra; People v. Scotti, supra), or fair response to the defense summation (see People v. Irving, 265 A.D.2d 575, 576).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.