Opinion
May 28, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The Justice presiding at the defendant's nonjury trial was familiar with the crime scene and surrounding area because he formerly served as an Assemblyman for that district. Initially, we note that the defendant's claim of prejudice has not been preserved for review because he failed to request the Trial Judge to recuse himself or otherwise voice any objection during the trial (CPL 470.05). In any event, the record is devoid of any evidence that the Trial Judge had personal knowledge of any disputed evidentiary facts material to the central issue of identification. Moreover, in the absence of any showing of prejudice, the Trial Judge is presumed, by virtue of his learning and experience, to have considered only the competent evidence in reaching his determination ( see, People v. Brown, 24 N.Y.2d 168; People v. Lombardi, 76 A.D.2d 891). There is no indication here that he substituted his personal knowledge of the area for the sworn testimony of the witnesses or that he relied upon certain inadmissible evidence in determining the issue of the defendant's guilt. Therefore, recusal of the Trial Judge was not mandated. Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.