Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence a recording of a 911 call placed by the victim's mother as an excited utterance, since the probative value of the 911 call outweighed any prejudicial effect ( see People v Carrenard, 56 AD3d 486, 487; cf. People v Jamerson, 21 AD3d 428).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86).