Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of multiple counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10, [3]). The charges arose from defendant's fraudulent use of a fictitious name, date of birth and social security number to obtain a New York State learner's permit, a driver's license, and a certificate of title from the Department of Motor Vehicles and a policy of automobile insurance from an insurance company. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during summation. We agree with defendant that the prosecutor's comments that defendant "needs a strong message" were improper ( see, People v. Dworakowski, 208 A.D.2d 1129, 1130, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1031; People v. Hanright, 187 A.D.2d 1021, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 840). Although Supreme Court should have sustained the objection to those comments and issued prompt curative instructions ( cf, People v. Dworakowski, supra, at 1130), we nevertheless conclude that those comments were not so egregious that they denied defendant a fair trial ( see, People v. Hanright, supra). Defendant's remaining challenges to the propriety of the prosecutor's remarks are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, those challenges are without merit because the remarks were within the bounds of fair argument ( see, People v. Spencer, 272 A.D.2d 682, 685, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 858). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.