Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The Trial Judge did not err in declining to recuse himself. Defendant does not contend that the Trial Judge violated section 14 Jud. of the Judiciary Law, which is the sole statutory authority for disqualification of a Judge. Absent a violation of that statute, bias or prejudice is not a ground for reversal on appeal unless it can be shown to have unjustly affected the result (Matter of Rotwein, 291 N.Y. 116, 123; Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 A.D.2d 732, 733; Matter of Katz v Denzer, 70 A.D.2d 548, 549). The record does not reveal any bias or prejudice on the part of the Trial Judge.
We reject defendant's contention that the court erred in considering an uncharged crime in sentencing defendant. It is essential that a sentencing court review the defendant's history. As part of the history, the court may consider offenses for which the defendant was not prosecuted or convicted (Williams v New York, 337 U.S. 241, reh denied 337 U.S. 961, 338 U.S. 841; People v Wright, 104 Misc.2d 911, 920; Annotation, Court's right in imposing sentence, to hear evidence of, or to consider, other offenses committed by defendant, 96 ALR2d 768; see also, People v Marrero, 110 A.D.2d 785, 786; People v Whalen, 99 A.D.2d 883, 884).