Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the seven-year-old complainant to testify as a sworn witness, since he had "`some conception' of the obligations of an oath and the consequences of giving false testimony" ( People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 46, quoting People v. Washor, 196 N.Y. 104, 109). Moreover, the child indicated that he knew the difference between the truth and a tie and knew that he would be punished if he did not tell the truth ( see, People v. Schultz, 168 A.D.2d 468). We also note that the child's testimony was corroborated by other physical and testimonial evidence indicating that the defendant had sodomized the child ( see, CPL 60.20).
The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's opening statement and summation is unpreserved for appellate. review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245) and, in any event, did not exceed the bounds of permissible rhetoric afforded counsel during argument ( see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Wilson, 173 A.D.2d 751).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal.
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.