DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Stephanie Zaro, J.), rendered January 8, 2018, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was accused of subjecting the complainant, his stepdaughter, to a course of sexual abuse beginning in 2009, when the complainant was 10 years old. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the second degree.
Contrary to the defendants contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicit certain evidence of the defendants prior bad acts toward the complainant and the other children in the household (see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286). The evidence—which did not include any alleged misconduct of a sexual nature—provided necessary background information both to explain the complainants delayed disclosure and regarding the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the complainant, and placed the events in question in an understandable context (see People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263; People v. Darby, 196 A.D.3d 643, 148 N.Y.S.3d 380; People v. Tebout, 179 A.D.3d 1099, 114 N.Y.S.3d 679).
Contrary to the defendants contention, the complainants outcry to her close friend when the complainant was 12 years old was prompt since she made the outcry while the abuse was ongoing (see People v. Rosario, 17 N.Y.3d 501, 515, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59, 958 N.E.2d 93; People v. Corrion, 195 A.D.3d 448, 144 N.Y.S.3d 852; People v. Gross, 172 A.D.3d 741, 743–744, 99 N.Y.S.3d 367). Moreover, the nonspecific testimony of the complainants uncle regarding the complainants later reports of sexual abuse did not constitute improper bolstering, as it was offered for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of explaining the investigative process and completing the narrative of events leading to the defendants arrest (see People v. Ludwig, 24 N.Y.3d 221, 231, 997 N.Y.S.2d 351, 21 N.E.3d 1012; People v. Rosario, 100 A.D.3d 660, 661, 953 N.Y.S.2d 299).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, FORD and DOWLING, JJ., concur.