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 hearing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, was not unduly prejudicial (see, Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61; People v. Swift, 272 A.D.2d 126). 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 entirely within the bounds of fair comment.
The defendant was not prejudiced by the brief and limited questioning of the arresting officer regarding the mechanics of drug sales (see, People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1026; People v. McAllister, 255 A.D.2d 241).