Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The challenged comments in the prosecutor's summation were either within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment afforded counsel during summation, responsive to the defendant's summation, constituted fair comment on the evidence, or related to matters which were fairly inferable from the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v Miller, 183 A.D.2d 790; People v Wilson, 173 A.D.2d 751).
Further, the trial court did not violate its ruling prohibiting a particular witness from making an in-court identification, by allowing that witness to testify at trial as to his observations at the scene of the crime, including his description of the perpetrator (see, People v Sanders, 66 N.Y.2d 906).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.