Judgments affirmed.
The jury's conclusion that the defendants were guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) is supported by legally sufficient evidence ( cf. People v Restrepo, 93 A.D.2d 825; People v. Ramirez, 79 A.D.2d 978). Also, the jury's finding that the People had disproved the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt is not against the weight of the evidence. Neither defendant voiced an objection to the trial court's supposedly misleading instruction as to the applicability of the defense of justification to the crime of reckless endangerment, or the court's failure to deliver an instruction as to identification. These claims are therefore not preserved for review (CPL 470.05; People v. Richburg, 109 A.D.2d 899; People v. Doctor, 98 A.D.2d 780). Also, although the prosecutor did not strictly confine his remarks in summation to matters within the four corners of the evidence, the trial court's admonitions and curative instructions served to eliminate any possibility of prejudice ( see, People v. Cuevas, 99 A.D.2d 553; People v. McCloskey, 92 A.D.2d 672). Defendant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and are without merit. O'Connor, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.