Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court erred in refusing to grant the codefendant's request for an adjournment so that an analysis could be obtained of the specimen taken from the complainant during the gynecological examination at the hospital following the incident is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248-252; People v McKenna, 151 A.D.2d 510, revd on other grounds 76 N.Y.2d 59).
Any prejudice which might have arisen due to the brief and ambiguous mention by the complainant of an uncharged crime was alleviated when the court sustained the defendant's objection and gave a prompt and thorough curative instruction (see, People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866; People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 111; People v Solano, 159 A.D.2d 738).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.