Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that certain testimony of the arresting officer improperly bolstered the victim's identification of defendant (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1025). Moreover, although that testimony did constitute improper bolstering (see, People v Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819, 821; People v Hart, 140 A.D.2d 711, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 919; People v Love, 135 A.D.2d 1099), the error in its admission must be deemed harmless in light of the victim's strong and unequivocal identification testimony and the ample opportunity that he had to observe the perpetrator of the robbery (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v Hart, supra, at 711-712).
Defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's comments during summation has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 1071; People v Singleton, 140 A.D.2d 388, 389). In any event, the only remark made by the prosecutor during summation that we deem to be improper was her comment which implied that a defense witness's testimony was a fabrication concocted by him after consultation with defendant (see, People v Davis, 112 A.D.2d 722, 724, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 918). However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, this isolated comment did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.
Finally, we conclude that this record reveals that defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).