DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence that the defendant threatened to harm the victim's three-year old daughter was necessary background material which facilitated the jury's understanding of the relationship among the parties, and helped the jury to understand the sequence of events culminating in the charged crime (see People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835; People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932; People v. Jones, 293 A.D.2d 489; People v. Farrington, 272 A.D.2d 624; People v. Montana, 192 A.D.2d 623; cf. People v. Ward, 62 N.Y.2d 816; People v. Cook, 42 N.Y.2d 204; People v. Tucker, 102 A.D.2d 535) . Furthermore, the Supreme Court prevented any possible prejudice by giving a prompt instruction to the jury regarding the use to which it could put this evidence (see generally People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294; People v. Young, 291 A.D.2d 578; People v. Carver, 183 A.D.2d 907; People v. Mulgrave, 163 A.D.2d 538).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Felix, 58 N.Y.2d 156; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.