Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Prior to the defendant's arrest, he made a statement regarding details of the crime that had not yet been released by the police. This statement was admitted into evidence. The defendant contends that this statement, which could have had more than one meaning, was too ambiguous to have been admitted into evidence. The defendant also challenges the prosecutor's summation remarks regarding this statement. The defendant did not preserve these claims for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v Tardbania, 72 N.Y.2d 852). In any event, the statement was properly admitted and its meaning and probative value were matters properly left for the jury (see, People v Vargas, 125 A.D.2d 429; People v Rowley, 160 A.D.2d 963).
We also reject the defendant's claim that the prosecutor's treatment of this statement during summation constituted reversible error. The prosecutor accurately restated the evidence presented by the testifying witnesses and made reasonable inferences from this evidence within the bounds of rhetorical comment permitted during closing arguments (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
In addition, the sentence imposed was not excessive in light of the violent nature of these crimes (see, Penal Law § 70.02; § 70.15; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.