The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's recusal motion based on the fact that the same court presided over a previous trial involving this defendant and acquired information pertaining to the instant charges (People v Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403). Nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny his motion for a mistrial (People v Tolbert, 202 A.D.2d 171, 172, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 833), after a witness inadvertently testified to an earlier shooting with which defendant was previously charged and acquitted, since the prompt response of the prosecutor and the court, indicating that only others had been involved, obviated any possible prejudice to him (see, People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v Young, 48 N.Y.2d 995). Further, since the prosecutor established a prima facie case of conspiracy without resorting to the taped statements of coconspirators, the recordings were properly admitted into evidence (People v Tran, 80 N.Y.2d 170, 180; People v Hernandez, 155 A.D.2d 342, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 813).
In light of the charges of which defendant was convicted, the ruthlessness with which he carried out his criminal enterprise and his complete disregard for the justice system, the sentence imposed did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.