Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the prosecutor impermissibly elicited testimony concerning his post-arrest silence. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Loaiza, 201 A.D.2d 587). In any event, any error in this regard was, under the circumstances, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Loaiza, supra).
The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's remarks on summation is similarly unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Sanchez, 197 A.D.2d 548). In any event, the prosecutor's comments constituted a fair response to defense counsel's challenge to the credibility of the People's witnesses (see, People v Long, 205 A.D.2d 804; People v Russo, 201 A.D.2d 512, affd 85 N.Y.2d 872).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, CPL 470.15; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.