Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial. By failing to specifically object to these comments at the trial, the defendant did not preserve this contention for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Wirts, 178 A.D.2d 165). In any event, the argument is without merit. The prosecutor's comments, which insinuated that the defendant tailored his testimony and intimidated the defense witnesses simply by his presence in the courtroom, were a fair response to the summation of the defense counsel (see, People v. Martin, 149 A.D.2d 534).
Additionally without merit is the defendant's contention that the trial court improperly refused to provide the jury with a definition of "home" within the meaning of the crime charged, which excludes possession of a loaded firearm in a person's home or place of business (see, Penal Law § 265.02; People v Powell, 54 N.Y.2d 524). The jury was presented with conflicting evidence as to whether the defendant resided in the apartment in question. Under the circumstances of the case, the charge was sufficient for the jury to determine the issue (see, People v Williams, 167 A.D.2d 565). Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.