Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial. The decision to declare a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to determine if this drastic remedy is necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial ( see Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243, 250; People v Way, 69 AD3d 964, 965; People v Hernandez, 11 AD3d 479; People v Knorr, 284 AD2d 411, 412). Here, while the challenged testimony was improper ( see generally People v Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 464-465; People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 856, 858; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264), any prejudice resulting therefrom was alleviated by the trial court's actions in immediately striking the testimony from the record and providing a curative instruction to the jury ( see People v Way, 69 AD3d at 965; People v Benloss, 60 AD3d 686, 687; People v Lockhart, 220 AD2d 690, 691).