Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In order to sustain convictions for criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance based upon accessorial liability, the evidence presented must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the mental culpability necessary to commit the crimes charged, i.e., he knew that the substance in question was a controlled substance, and that, in furtherance thereof, he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided his codefendant in the commission of the crimes ( see, People v. Kaplan, 76 N.Y.2d 140; People v. Coulter, 240 A.D.2d 756; Penal Law § 20.00, 220.39 Penal [1]; § 220.16 [1]; § 220.03). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant intentionally aided his codefendant in the sale and possession of heroin ( see, People v. Wylie, 180 A.D.2d 774). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's further contention that reversible error occurred by reason of the prosecutor's remarks during summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Coker, 135 A.D.2d 723). In any event, the prosecutor's statements did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). The prosecutor's statements were either reasonably inferable from the evidence ( see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105) or fair responses to arguments raised by defense counsel during summation ( see, People v. Rivera, 158 A.D.2d 723).
S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.