Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Bedford, Westchester County (Kevin J. Quaranta, J.), rendered May 25, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [d]).

As defendant procured a printed transcript of the electronic recording of the trial, the requirements of CPL 460.30 (3) have been satisfied (see People v Robinson, 72 NY2d 989, 990 [1988] People v Finklea, 41 Misc 3d 41 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013]), and, thus, defendant's contention that the allegations in his affidavit of errors should be deemed admitted is without merit.

Defendant further contends that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence, because it was not established that the New York State trooper who stopped him for speeding was certified to use the radar device with which he measured the speed of defendant's vehicle. Defendant's claim regarding the radar system was not raised at the trial and is therefore unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2] People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995] People v Raghubir, 39 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52476[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]).

In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of speeding beyond a reasonable doubt. We note that, according to the trooper's visual estimate, defendant's vehicle exceeded the speed limit by more than 20 miles per hour (see People v Knight, 72 NY2d 481, 488 [1988] People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230, 232 [1968] People v Dusing, 5 NY2d 126, 128 [1959] People v Schnitzler, 37 Misc 3d 143[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52268[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012] People v Les, 36 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51439[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]).

Defendant's contention that the Justice Court improperly assumed the role of prosecutor is without merit. In this case, no prosecutor was present at the trial. Thus, the trooper assumed the role of prosecutor. In such circumstances, it is well settled that the trial court may extensively question the witnesses (see People v DeLeyden, 10 NY2d 293, 294 [1961] People v Wright, 19 Misc 3d 140[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50904[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008] People v Dudas, 1 Misc 3d 132[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51623[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]).

Defendant's claim that the Justice Court allegedly considered unsworn testimony from a "person in the front row" of the courtroom is unpreserved for appellate review, as defendant did not object when the Justice Court heard a statement from that unidentified person regarding setting a GPS device. In any event, the statement was made during colloquy between the Justice Court and defendant's counsel, after both the People and defendant had rested. Thus, it did not [*2]constitute unsworn testimony. Moreover, nothing in the Justice Court's decision indicates that it considered the statement.

Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaSalle and Marano, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 31, 2014