Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although it was improper for the prosecutor to attempt to question the defendant about his membership in a named youth gang (see, e.g., People v Connally, 105 A.D.2d 797; People v Stewart, 92 A.D.2d 226), the trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the question. The trial court is deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction in the absence of a request by the defendant for further curative instructions (see, e.g., People v Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070; People v Seaton, 119 A.D.2d 600; cf., People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865). In any event, the prosecutor's conduct was not so prejudicial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The record indicates that the prosecutor's question about the defendant's gang membership was unanswered, and there was no further reference to this group during the trial (see, e.g., People v Beatty, 134 A.D.2d 602; People v Boxill, 111 A.D.2d 399, affd 67 N.Y.2d 678).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.