Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the testimony of a police officer regarding statements made to him by the victim about the crime was improperly admitted under the prompt outcry exception against hearsay. That contention is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to object to portions of the testimony, made only a general objection to other portions of the testimony, and failed to object to the court's curative instructions to the jury (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Williams, 240 A.D.2d 686; People v. West, 56 N.Y.2d 662; People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865). In any event, assuming that the testimony was improperly admitted since it contained not merely the fact that a complaint was made but details of the crime as reported by the victim ( see, People v. McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 10, 17; People v. Rice, 75 N.Y.2d 929), reversal is not warranted on that ground in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Rice, supra, at 932).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal ( see, People v. Crimmins, supra).
Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.