We reject the further contention that the court erred in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on police testimony that defendant invoked his right to counsel during questioning. The jury is presumed to have followed the court's curative instructions and to have disregarded the improper testimony ( see People v. Kimble, 289 A.D.2d 1062, 1063, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 638; People v. Mims, 278 A.D.2d 822, 823, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 832; People v. Owens, 214 A.D.2d 480, 481, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 799), and the court's curative instructions thereby eliminated any prejudice to defendant ( see People v. Brown, 248 A.D.2d 1017; People v. McCray, 227 A.D.2d 900, 901, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 866; People v. Guise, 179 A.D.2d 1027, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001).

25), criminal impersonation in the second degree (Penal Law § 190.25) and six counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). By failing to object to the admission of the videotape of the conditional examination of two prosecution witnesses, defendant did not preserve for our review any of her contentions concerning the validity of the conditional examination and the admissibility of the videotape (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Dixon, 221 A.D.2d 952, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 972, cert denied 519 U.S. 842). Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for a mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to defendant's commission of an uncharged crime (see, People v. Guise, 179 A.D.2d 1027, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001; People v. Nagi, 153 A.D.2d 964). Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court's questioning of the jurors and the court's curative instruction were inadequate (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866).

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motions for a mistrial. The court gave prompt curative instructions addressing the basis for each motion, thereby alleviating any prejudice that may have resulted (see, People v. Guise, 179 A.D.2d 1027, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001). Defendant contends that three comments by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial.

We disagree. The reference to "robbing somebody" was properly received as an admission inconsistent with defendant's innocence ( see, People v. Harris, 148 A.D.2d 469). The unsolicited reference to defendant going to jail, however, was inadmissible ( see, People v. Kirkland, 177 A.D.2d 946, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 859; see also, People v. Guise, 179 A.D.2d 1027, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001). Although the court denied the motion for a mistrial, it gave a curative instruction that the jury was to disregard completely the witness's reference to defendant going to jail, thereby alleviating any prejudice ( see, e.g., People v. Brooks, 213 A.D.2d 999, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 970; People v. Guise, supra; People v. Johnson, 124 A.D.2d 1063, 1064, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 951). Thus, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion ( see, People v. Young, 48 N.Y.2d 995, 996, rearg dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 644; People v. Guise, supra; People v. Kirkland, supra; People v. Mosley, 170 A.D.2d 990, 991, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 964).

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor commented upon defendant's absence. The prosecutor's comment was not prejudicial, and, in any event, the court gave an adequate curative instruction (see, People v Sanders, 199 A.D.2d 1011, 1012-1013, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 810; People v Guise, 179 A.D.2d 1027, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001; People v Banks, 130 A.D.2d 498, 498-499, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 709).

The duty to make such findings may not be delegated to the Probation Department (People v. Fuller, supra, at 155, 158-159; People v De Berry, 117 A.D.2d 1006). There are not sufficient facts in the record to make a determination and, therefore, we vacate the amount of restitution and remit this matter for a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be paid by defendant (see, People v. Guise, 179 A.D.2d 1027, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001; People v. Sommer, supra; People v. Ramirez, supra). We have examined defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.

We also reject his argument that the court erred in ordering the amount of restitution recommended in the probation report without conducting a hearing. Defendant concedes that the proof at trial established that the victim's unreimbursed loss was $6,100, and thus we conclude that a hearing was unnecessary (see, People v King, 158 A.D.2d 972, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 737; People v. Welsher, 154 A.D.2d 915, 916, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 952; cf., People v Guise, 179 A.D.2d 1027, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001; People v Vella, 176 A.D.2d 768, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 833; People v Clougher, 95 A.D.2d 860). Defendant was ordered to pay restitution of $3,500 plus a $175 surcharge, an amount less than that established by the record (cf., People v. Ramirez, 98 A.D.2d 985).

The second category is the answer given to the prosecutor's question which is in response to the question but which is not the answer expected. Illustrative of these types of answers are: People v Rotundo ( 194 A.D.2d 943, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 726 — the informant in response to the prosecutor's question as to how he knew the defendant replied "drug dealer"); People v Guise ( 179 A.D.2d 1027, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001 — police officer testified on direct examination that when he asked the defendant whether he understood his constitutional rights, the defendant responded "Yes. I have been arrested before"); People v Price ( 149 A.D.2d 754, 755, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 667, supra — prosecutor asked investigator what he and the defendant talked about at the time of the defendant's statement, and he answered "Life in general, his life with his wife * * * his life in prison").