DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that reversal is required due to the prosecutor's improper summation is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hinckson, 266 A.D.2d 404 [2d Dept., Nov. 15, 1999]; People v. Candelario, 260 A.D.2d 391 ; People v. Feliciano, 254 A.D.2d 496 ). In any event, the challenged comments do not require reversal. A prosecutor has broad latitude during summation, particularly when responding to defense counsel' s summation (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396 ; People v. Reddi, 266 A.D.2d 406 [2d Dept., Nov. 15, 1999]), and here the prosecutor's statements were, for the most part, fair comment on the evidence, or fair response to the defense summation, which extensively attacked the credibility of the People's witnesses (see, People v. David, 266 A.D.2d 288 [2d Dept., Nov. 1, 1999]; People v. Reddi, supra; People v. Lee, 209 A.D.2d 723 ). Furthermore, the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming, rendering any error harmless (see,People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 ; People v. Brosnan, 32 N.Y.2d 254, 263 ; People v. Santiago, 265 A.D.2d 351; [2d Dept., Oct. 4, 1999]).
O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.