Opinion
November 17, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence was legally sufficient to support the verdict. In ascertaining the sufficiency of the proof of the element of forcible compulsion, it is the victim's perceptions that govern (People v Coleman, 42 N.Y.2d 500, 505-506), and given the marked discrepancy in size and strength between the 11-year-old victim and the defendant, the trier of fact could have reasonably found that the forceful pushing and restraining of the victim by the defendant constituted an implied threat that placed the victim in fear of serious injury (see, People v Bermudez, 109 A.D.2d 674).
Moreover, the court's clear preclusive ruling pursuant to People v Molineux ( 168 N.Y. 264) with respect to the evidence of prior bad acts sought to be offered by the People did not prevent the court from ultimately determining the defendant's guilt. A Judge is presumed to have considered only the competent evidence adduced at trial in reaching his verdict (People v Brown, 24 N.Y.2d 168; People v Lombardi, 76 A.D.2d 891; see also, People v Murdocca, 120 A.D.2d 682; People v Reyes, 116 A.D.2d 602), and there is absolutely no indication in the record that the Trial Judge's verdict was based on anything other than competent evidence.
Finally, we note that the court did not err in refusing to admit into evidence that portion of the victim's hospital record that revealed his history since there was no testimony that the patient's history was in any way relevant to his diagnosis and treatment (see, People v Davis, 95 A.D.2d 837; People v Richardson, 38 A.D.2d 990; People v Conde, 16 A.D.2d 327). Brown, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.