Judgment affirmed.
We have examined the many contentions raised in defense counsel's brief and in both of defendant's supplemental pro se briefs and find that the errors complained of are either unpreserved for review as a matter of law or are without merit. Specifically, we note that while the Assistant District Attorney improperly questioned defendant on cross-examination regarding his prearrest failure to contact the police with his exculpatory version of the events ( People v Pressley, 93 A.D.2d 665) and improperly phrased questions in such a way as to compel defendant to characterize the prosecution's witnesses as liars ( People v Ochoa, 86 A.D.2d 637; People v Mariable, 58 A.D.2d 877), we do not believe that these errors require reversal in the interest of justice. The cumulative effect of the questions was harmless given the fact that the issues were not dwelled upon and in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (cf. People v Ormond, 73 A.D.2d 629; People v McDowell, 59 A.D.2d 948, aff'd 47 N.Y.2d 858). Finally, we note that there is no basis in the record from which to conclude that defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.