Defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's comments during summation are unpreserved (People v. Tardbania, 72 N.Y.2d 852; People v. Iannelli, 69 N.Y.2d 684, cert denied 482 U.S. 914) and in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we decline to review in the interest of justice (People v. Alexander, 153 A.D.2d 507, 509, affd 75 N.Y.2d 979). Concerning defendant's claim that the court should have examined the prosecutor's files in camera for evidence of a cooperation agreement between the prosecutor and the complainant, or directed that the files be turned over to counsel, both the prosecutor and the complainant denied that they entered into any such cooperation agreement, and defendant's speculation to the contrary is not supported by a record that allows for review of this claim (People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 148-149; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709). Nor did defendant preserve his claim that the court should have provided a second Spanish speaking interpreter during the testimony of the complainant, which, in any event, appears to be without merit, since defendant's own interpreter translated the complainant's answer for him, and his appellate contention that he could not understand the prosecutor's question has no support in the record.
Finally, we have reviewed defendant's contention that his sentence is excessive and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.