Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no evidence in the record that his confession was coerced, or that he was so ill prior to the time that he gave his statement that the voluntariness of the statement may be questioned (see, People v Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38). Moreover, a five-hour interrogation, in and of itself, does not render his eventual statement inadmissible (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; see also, People v. Abreu, 184 A.D.2d 707, 708). The record clearly indicates that the defendant was permitted to drink, eat, and go to the bathroom during the interview. During his videotaped confession, which was entered into evidence, he admitted that the police had treated him like a gentleman at all times.
The prosecutor's remarks during summation constituted fair comment on the evidence or were legitimate responses to defense counsel's summation (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.