Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his right to the presumption of innocence was not violated because court officers accompanied him to side-bar conferences with prospective jurors during jury selection. Having court officers accompany a defendant to side-bar discussions is an acceptable method of balancing the defendant's right to be present at such discussions (see, People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247) with the court's duty to maintain an orderly and secure courtroom (see, People v Briggs, 220 A.D.2d 762; People v. Cousart, 217 A.D.2d 556; People v. Pondexter, 215 A.D.2d 409).
In addition, the court properly denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial due to the complainant's testimony which could be interpreted as referring to uncharged crimes. Any prejudice that resulted was alleviated by the court's curative action (see, People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v. Richardson, 175 A.D.2d 143).
The sentence is not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.