ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his application to recall a prosecution witness as part of his direct case. Although a defendant has a fundamental right to call witnesses on his own behalf (see People v. Palmer, 272 A.D.2d 891; People v. Arroyo, 162 A.D.2d 337, 339, affd 77 N.Y.2d 947; People v. Lloyde, 106 A.D.2d 405), where, as here, the record demonstrates that the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to recross-examine the witness following the People's redirect, the application was properly denied (see People v. Gonzalez, 254 A.D.2d 5; People v. Taylor, 231 A.D.2d 945).
Moreover, the prosecutor's summation did not "demonstrate a persistent, egregious course of conduct that was deliberate and reprehensible" (People v. Rudolph, 161 A.D.2d 115, 116), and the court issued curative instructions after each statement to which there was an objection, thereby dispelling any alleged prejudice (see People v. Rivera, 142 A.D.2d 614, 615; People v. West, 137 A.D.2d 855, 857, affd 72 N.Y.2d 941). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, any errors were harmless (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., O'BRIEN, LUCIANO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.