ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly permitted the prosecution to introduce evidence of his prior acts of domestic abuse and assaults against the complainant. This evidence was properly admitted as relevant background material to enable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with the complainant and explain the issuance of an order of protection, and as evidence of the defendant's motive in the commission of the charged crimes (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. Wright, 288 A.D.2d 409; People v. Howard, 285 A.D.2d 560; People v. Shorey, 172 A.D.2d 634).
The defendant's claim that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation improperly appealed to the sympathy of the jury and denigrated defense counsel is largely unpreserved for appellate review because his objections to most of these comments were sustained without any request for curative instructions (see, People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v. Robinson, 281 A.D.2d 564; People v. Sherwood, 279 A.D.2d 486; People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538). With respect to the two comments that were the subject of the defendant's mistrial motion, reversal is not warranted because any prejudice these remarks may have caused was dissipated by the curative instructions given when objections to them were sustained and by the charge to the jury (see, People v. Brown, 272 A.D.2d 338; People v. Dhan, 271 A.D.2d 452).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.