The court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant's application for a mistrial based upon prior bad act testimony elicited during cross-examination of the complainant, since the court's prompt curative actions in striking the testimony and instructing the jury to disregard it prevented any possible prejudice to defendant ( see, People v. Maisonet, 209 A.D.2d 297, 298, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 864, cert denied 516 U.S. 809). Defendant failed to preserve his claim of error regarding the prosecutor's summation comments in connection with the complainant's identification testimony and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the comments in question did not deprive defendant of a fair trial in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant, as well as the court's instructions to the jurors that it was their recollection of the evidence that controlled and that nothing the attorneys said in summation constituted evidence ( see, People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 120, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).
Defendant's challenge to the court's charge is unpreserved and without merit.
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.