Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during trial. Trial counsel cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, made appropriate motions, made an adequate opening statement, and set forth the defense in summation. The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of representation, reveal that meaningful representation was provided (see, People v Kieser, 172 A.D.2d 626; People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796).
The defendant asserts that the prosecutor's summation deprived him of a fair trial. We disagree. With respect to most of the claimed improprieties, the court issued adequate curative instructions which were not objected to (see, People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v Hansen, 158 A.D.2d 542, 543; People v Fisher, 148 A.D.2d 628) and the others were responsive to the defense counsel's summation and did not exceed the bounds of fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109; People v Reynolds, 169 A.D.2d 740; People v Lee, 167 A.D.2d 354, 355; People v Rivera, 131 A.D.2d 518, 519).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kunzeman, J.P., Sullivan, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.