—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the prosecutor improperly questioned him regarding a codefendant’s guilty plea. Supreme Court sustained defendant’s objections to the prosecutor’s questions and defendant neither made a further objection nor requested a curative instruction. Thus, the court “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Williams,
There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to give a missing witness charge based on the People’s failure to call the codefendant at trial. There is no indication that the codefendant would have provided testimony favorable to the People or that he was in the People’s control (see, People v Williams,
Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments on summation regarding the codefendant’s guilty plea were fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Halm,
