Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As the People made it clear from the outset that they did not intend to call a certain individual as a witness, they were not obligated to furnish the defense with his entire Grand Jury testimony or the transcript of a tape-recorded telephone conversation he had with the prosecutor (see, CPL 240.45 [a]). The material claimed by the defendant to have been wrongfully withheld was not discoverable material, as it was not exculpatory and did not relate to the issue of the defendant's guilt. Further, the defendant was amply apprised of this witness's prior statements through other materials which had been provided by the prosecution (see, People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 551).
No objection was taken to the prosecution's summation, thereby leaving any issue of law with respect thereto unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Turner, 141 A.D.2d 878; People v. Koleskor, 131 A.D.2d 879; People v. Simmons, 112 A.D.2d 173). While some of these remarks were better left unsaid, we do not find that reversal of the conviction in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction is warranted. The majority of the comments made during summation were responsive to that portion of the defense counsel's summation which stressed the implausibility of the scenario set forth by the complainant (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert. denied 362 U.S. 912; People v. Martin, 112 A.D.2d 387).
We find that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Eiber, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.