Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claims that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were unduly prejudicial (see, CPL 470.50; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v. Dordal, 55 N.Y.2d 954). In any event, all but one of those comments were proper responses to arguments raised by the defense in summation and were well within the bounds of permissible advocacy (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105).
However, the prosecutor misportrayed a portion of his cross-examination of a defense witness who admitted that she had previously been arrested for the sale of drugs. The record does not support the prosecutor's assertion that the witness also stated that "she doesn't like cop[s] * * * because they arrested her for selling drugs before". Nevertheless, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, we conclude that this isolated remark did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Wood, 66 N.Y.2d 374). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.