DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's question to Detective Hein concerning whether he should call his lawyer, after he showed Detective Hein his lawyer's business card, did not constitute an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel which would prevent further police interrogation (see, People v. Cunningham, 49 N.Y.2d 203 ;People v. Santiago, 133 A.D.2d 429, aff'd 72 N.Y.2d 836 ; People v. Sanchez, 117 A.D.2d 685 ; People v. Diaz, 161 A.D.2d 789 ). The record supports the Supreme Court's finding that the defendant's waiver of counsel was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress his oral and written statements.
The defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, concerning certain remarks by the prosecutor during summation is, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Zephir, 226 A.D.2d 408 ). In any event, the comments made by the prosecutor during summation were fair comment on the evidence, permissive rhetorical comment, responsive to the defendant's summation (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105 ;People v. Turner, 214 A.D.2d 594 ), or were not so prejudicial as to require reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 ).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).