Defendant's general, unelaborated objection was insufficient to preserve his current claim that the People impeached their own witness in violation of CPL 60.35 (see, People v. Santana, 215 A.D.2d 105, 106, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 801), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the People did not attempt to elicit a prior inconsistent statement, but that the witness volunteered the statement. The prosecutor's argument on summation that defendant and the victim must have had a dispute outside a restaurant hours before the fatal shooting was supported by reasonable inferences from the evidence and was directly responsive to defense counsel's summation (see, People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884; cf., People v. Figueroa, 153 A.D.2d 576, 583-584; see also, People v. Reed, 40 N.Y.2d 204, 207-208).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.