Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the brief reference to an uncharged crime elicited by defense counsel on cross-examination of the complainant's mother neither warranted the declaration of a mistrial as requested by the defendant nor requires reversal of his judgment of conviction. We note in this respect that immediately after the witness's comment was made, the trial court sustained defense counsel's objection and administered a prompt curative instruction, which, we find, was sufficient to dispel any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Rodriguez-Alvarez, 156 A.D.2d 733; People v Santiago, 155 A.D.2d 628; People v Martin, 154 A.D.2d 554; People v Johnson, 124 A.D.2d 1063; see also, People v Ortiz, 54 N.Y.2d 288, 294; People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; cf., People v Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673, 682; People v Baptiste, 72 N.Y.2d 356).
We find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; see also, People v Perez, 150 A.D.2d 395). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.