Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we are convinced that he was not deprived of a fair trial. The testimony of an Assistant District Attorney who related that the robbery victim had previously identified the defendant at a corporeal lineup was not improperly received since the victim was unable to identify the defendant at trial (CPL 60.25; see, People v. Nival, 33 N.Y.2d 391, appeal dismissed and cert denied 417 U.S. 903). The introduction of the photograph of the lineup and the testimony of the Assistant District Attorney as to the makeup of the lineup did not impermissibly bolster the identification as this evidence merely enabled the jury to best assess whether the lineup was generally fair, or as contended by the defendant at trial, unduly suggestive (cf., People v. Sims, 127 A.D.2d 712, 713-714; People v. Mojica, 122 A.D.2d 81, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1002).
Nor was the defendant deprived of a fair trial by the statements of the prosecutor during summation. We note that many of the defendant's arguments raised on appeal were not objected to at trial and hence any error of law with respect thereto was unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; see, People v Bowen, 50 N.Y.2d 915). In any event, the prosecutor's statements in toto were not improper as his alleged "vouching" for the People's witnesses was a fair response to the defense summation which impugned the credibility of these witnesses (see, People v Crawford, 130 A.D.2d 678). The prosecutor's other statements were similarly proper under the circumstances (see, People v Koleskor, 131 A.D.2d 879, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 801; People v Turner, 120 A.D.2d 629, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 673; People v Gavins, 118 A.D.2d 582, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1052; People v Oakley, 114 A.D.2d 473, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 921).
We do not believe that the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant to the terms imposed (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83). Spatt, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.