Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jordan Cerruti, and Keerthana Nunna of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deborah A. Dowling, J.), rendered August 17, 2018, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was afforded fair notice of the charges against him (see People v Yakubova, 11 AD3d 644, 645). The indictment was amplified in a bill of particulars and an addendum to the bill of particulars, providing the defendant with the notice to which he was entitled (see id.; People v D'Amico, 261 AD2d 635, 635).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in allowing testimony pertaining to the defendant's acts of sexual abuse toward the complainant that took place after she turned 11 years old, even though the defendant was not charged with a crime based on those acts (see People v Patierno, 240 AD3d 516, 517). The testimony completed the narrative of events charged in the indictment, provided relevant background information to explain to the jury the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the complainant, and placed the charged conduct in context (see People v Cedillo, 242 AD3d 1107, 1107; People v Darby, 196 AD3d 643, 643). Further, the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for undue prejudice to the defendant (see People v Cedillo, 242 AD3d at 1107; People v Darby, 196 AD3d at 643), and the court's limiting instruction to the jury served to alleviate any prejudice from the admission of that evidence (see People v Speaks, 28 NY3d 990, 991; People v Danon, 167 AD3d 930, 931).

The defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's instruction to the jury concerning the elements of the offense of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree on which they had to unanimously agree is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice (see People v Hobson, 220 AD3d 806, 808).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

IANNACCI, J.P., TAYLOR, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.