Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to suppress his statement to the police at the time of his warrantless arrest. Although warrantless, this arrest was justified because of exigent circumstances (Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 221; McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456; People v. Burr, 124 A.D.2d 5, affd 70 N.Y.2d 354, cert denied ___ US ___, 108 S Ct 1294). The police actions were in response to the murder of Julio Bentances. At the scene of the murder, the police determined that an assailant had shot the victim in the head and chest. They were advised by witnesses that defendant was the assailant and that he had fled. The officers were also given defendant's address and apartment number. Within approximately 15 minutes of the incident, officers arrived at defendant's apartment building and, finding the door ajar, entered. Defendant was arrested in the hallway outside his apartment. Given these exigent circumstances, defendant's warrantless arrest was justified (People v. Mealer, 57 N.Y.2d 214, 219, cert denied 460 U.S. 1024; People v. Burr, supra). Defendant further contends that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct. Although in his summation the prosecutor went beyond the four corners of the evidence, bolstered his own witnesses, and impugned the defense, we cannot say that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.