DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Evidence of the defendant's prior misconduct toward the victim's mother was properly introduced into evidence. The challenged evidence was admissible because it was probative of the victim's state of mind and on the issue of delayed outcry. The probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Cook, 93 N.Y.2d 840; People v. Wright, 266 A.D.2d 414; People v. Gargano, 222 A.D.2d 694; People v. George, 197 A.D.2d 588; People v. Basir, 179 A.D.2d 662).
The defendant's contention that the court improperly failed to instruct the jury regarding the limited purpose of testimony of his prior misconduct is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). The defendant never requested such a limiting instruction. In any event, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85).