Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree and other related crimes, defendant's sole argument is that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the prosecutor's references to uncharged crimes in an attempt to portray defendant as a professional burglar. It is, of course, patently improper to introduce evidence of uncharged crimes if the only purpose is to show bad character or a defendant's propensity to commit crime (People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241; People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359; People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 47; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 313; People v Buccina, 124 A.D.2d 983). Although the prosecutor's conduct at this trial was far from commendable, the trial court properly sustained defendant's objections and gave complete curative instructions to the jury whenever the prosecutor overstepped his bounds. In our view, the court's prompt and complete instructions to the jury were sufficient to cure any error (see, People v Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294, 299-300; People v. Evans, 136 A.D.2d 562, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1026). In view of the strong evidence of guilt and the trial court's curative instructions, we do not believe that the prosecutor's conduct deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Dunn, 158 A.D.2d 941; People v. Mohammed, 151 A.D.2d 1018, 1019; People v. Matta, 144 A.D.2d 1014, 1015).