Opinion
May 19, 1986
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Rosenblatt, J.).
Order affirmed, for reasons stated by Justice Rosenblatt.
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant was subpoenaed to testify before a Grand Jury investigating a certain meter-tampering and bill-fixing scheme. Before they brought him to testify, the prosecutors interviewed the defendant. He consistently denied any knowledge of the scheme itself; however, he related to the prosecutors some information evidencing that one of the individuals being investigated was involved in an extortion incident, and intimidated potential witnesses into dropping charges or refusing to testify. When questioned before the Grand Jury, however, the defendant failed to recall having made such statements to the prosecutors, and further failed to recall the occurrence of the events which he had earlier described.
There was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the four counts of criminal contempt in the first degree (see, Penal Law § 215.51; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). The defendant's evasive profession of an inability to recall (before the Grand Jury) was properly found to be an intentional evasion (see, People v Schenkman, 46 N.Y.2d 232, 239; People v Ianniello, 36 N.Y.2d 137, 142).
There is no evidence that the trial court improperly considered testimony indicating that the defendant was somehow involved with the meter-tampering scheme. "A Judge * * * is presumed, absent a showing of prejudice, to have considered only the competent evidence adduced at trial in reaching the verdict" (People v Reyes, 116 A.D.2d 602, 603). Weinstein, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.