Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized during the search of his home because the search was unlawful. We reject that contention. The search was initiated and conducted by, inter alia, defendant’s parole officer after defendant’s GPS ankle bracelet stopped transmitting and defendant failed to observe his required curfew. We conclude that the parole officer’s search of defendant’s home for defendant, the bracelet, or the GPS transmitter was lawful because it was “rationally and reasonably related to the performance of his duty as a parole officer” (People v Huntley, 43 NY2d 175, 179 [1977]; see People v Johnson, 94 AD3d 1529, 1531-1532 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 974 [2012]; People v Nappi, 83 AD3d 1592, 1593-1594 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 820 [2011]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct based on comments made by the prosecutor during his opening and closing statements (see People v Figgins, 72 AD3d 1599, 1600 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 893 [2010]). In any event, we conclude that the two comments that the People do not dispute were improper, as well as the remaining comments to which defendant now objects, were not so egregious as to deny defendant a fair trial (see People v Dizak, 93 AD3d 1182, 1184 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 972 [2012]; People v Jacobson, 60 AD3d 1326, 1328 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 916 [2009]).
Finally, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Centra, J.E, Peradotto, Garni, Bindley and Sconiers, JJ.