ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly permitted the People to introduce evidence relating to the defendant's prior assault against the victim. It is well settled that "where the evidence of prior, uncharged criminal conduct has a bearing upon a material aspect of the People's case other than the accused's general propensity toward criminality * * * the probative value of the evidence justifies its admission, notwithstanding the potential for incidental prejudice" (People v. Santarelli, 49 N.Y.2d 241, 247; see also, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233). Despite the defendant's contention, evidence that he previously assaulted the victim was admissible to establish his motive and intent (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. Hamid, 209 A.D.2d 716; People v. Montana, 192 A.D.2d 623; People v. Vita, 184 A.D.2d 742; People v. Carver, 183 A.D.2d 907).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.