By failing to object, by making general objections, or by failing to request any further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve her contentions regarding the prosecutor's questions during cross-examination and comments on summation (People v. Feliciano, 235 A.D.2d 207, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1 092), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the prosecutor's questions and remarks were responsive to defendant's direct testimony and defense counsel's summation comments (People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 142, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976).
The court's main charge, viewed as a whole, conveyed the appropriate legal standards with respect to the elements of the crimes (see, People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817). The court's instruction on the effect of mistake of law on liability (Penal Law § 15.20) was warranted by matters contained in defendant's testimony and summation. We note that the remaining portions of the charge challenged by defendant on appeal conveyed essentially the same information contained in defendant's requests to charge (cf., People v. Chesler, 50 N.Y.2d 203, 210). Defendant's challenge to the court's supplemental charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court's response was meaningful.