Opinion
No. 2006-08896.
February 13, 2008.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), rendered September 5, 2006, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (two counts), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, and driving without a seat belt, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J. Twersky of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Dillon and Carni, JJ.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645).
The defendant's claim that the Justice who presided at his trial should have recused himself is without merit. Since no basis for disqualification pursuant to Judiciary Law § 14 was presented, it was up to the discretion of the Justice to decide whether or not to recuse himself ( see People v Rolle, 37 AD3d 624, 624-625; People v Daly, 20 AD3d 542). Based upon the record before us, we conclude that the Justice properly declined to recuse himself.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as defense counsel only made general, unspecified objections (see CPL 470.05; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911). In any event, a review of the challenged comments reveals that they were primarily fair comment on the evidence adduced at trial or responsive to defense counsel's summation ( see People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824; People v Cariola, 276 AD2d 800). Moreover, even if some of these comments arguably were improper, under the circumstances, the defendant was not denied a fair trial ( see People v Vallee, 21 AD3d 502).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.