Judgment affirmed.
Despite the minor inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, the evidence presented was sufficient to support the verdict since a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Jackson, 114 A.D.2d 858; People v Herriot, 110 A.D.2d 851, 852). No objections were made to any part of the prosecutor's summation, and consequently the claims of prosecutorial misconduct are entirely unpreserved (see, People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 819; People v George, 108 A.D.2d 870). In any event, the defendant was not substantially prejudiced by any of the prosecutor's comments (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 36, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837). His further claim that the complainant's identification testimony was improperly bolstered by the testimony of the People's two police witnesses is similarly unpreserved (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023). In view of the defendant's criminal record, the sentence imposed was not excessive and appellate modification is not warranted (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Lazer, J.P., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.