Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecutor's tactic of essentially forcing him to testify on cross-examination that he believed that the complainant was lying deprived him of a fair trial. We disagree. The trial court promptly issued a curative instruction concerning the objectionable line of cross-examination and the defendant did not thereafter request an additional curative instruction or move for a mistrial. The claim is therefore unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Perez, 162 A.D.2d 477). In any event, any prejudice that may have resulted from the improper cross-examination was effectively dispelled by the court's prompt curative instruction (see, People v. Aversa, 156 A.D.2d 371; People v. Vredenburg, 110 A.D.2d 730).
The defendant's additional contention that the People's expert witness was improperly permitted to testify about child sex abuse syndrome is similarly unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the testimony was properly admitted into evidence to dispell the misconception that the child's failure to immediately notify her parents that she had been sexually abused was proof that the abuse had not occurred (see, People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.