Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the court's conclusion that the witnesses' opportunity to view the defendant during the commission of the crime furnished an adequate independent basis for an accurate in-court identification was supported by the record and we see no reason to disturb it (see, People v Thomas, 51 N.Y.2d 466, 475).
As to the Sandoval ruling, it is well settled that the extent to which the prosecution is to be permitted to impeach a defendant's credibility with prior criminal conduct is a decision best left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881). The court properly found evidence of the defendant's prior convictions relevant both with respect to his credibility and to demonstrate that he consistently placed his interests above those of society (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v Monroe, 135 A.D.2d 741, 742).
The prosecutor's remarks in summation concerning the credibility of the People's witnesses were a fair response to the defense summation in which defense counsel accused them of lying (see, People v Crawford, 130 A.D.2d 678; People v Oakley, 114 A.D.2d 473; People v Anthony, 24 N.Y.2d 696). Similarly, her comments regarding the dearth of fingerprint evidence were fair response to defense counsel's treatment of the issue in summation (see, People v Crawford, supra; People v Oakley, supra; People v Anthony, supra).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Eiber, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.