People v. Matos, 121 A.D.3d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Matos, 121 A.D.3d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …the element of serious physical injury was satisfied by evidence supporting the conclusion that the wound inflicted by defendant caused serious disfigurement to the victim's face at p. 546 ✓ Topic ↗
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Reitz (nyappdiv, 2015-02-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reitz (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
With respect to section 120.10 (1), “[t]he element of serious physical injury was satisfied by evidence supporting the conclusion that the wound [ ] inflicted by defendant caused serious disfigurement to [the] victim[’s] face[ ]” (People v Matos, 121 AD3d 545, 546 [2014]; see People v Snyder, 100 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2012]; see generally People v Stewart, 18 NY3d 831, 832 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reitz (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
With respect to section 120.10 (1), “[t]he element of serious physical injury was satisfied by evidence supporting the conclusion that the wound [ ] inflicted by defendant caused serious disfigurement to [the] victim[’s] face[ ]” (People v Matos, 121 AD3d 545, 546 [2014]; see People v Snyder, 100 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2012]; see generally People v Stewart, 18 NY3d 831, 832 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" REITZ, MICHAEL T., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, the evidence at trial established that the victim sustained a four-inch- long wound to her cheek that left a permanent scar. “[V]iewed as a whole, and especially considering the prominent location of the wound on the face, [the evidence at trial] support[s] the inference that at the time of trial the scar[] remained seriously disfiguring under the McKinnon standard” (People v Coote, 110 AD3d 485, 485 , lv denied 22 NY3d 1198 ; see Matos, 121 AD3d at 546 ; People v Gumbs, 107 AD3d 548, 548 , lv denied 22 NY3d 1156 , cert denied ___ US ___, 135 S Ct 143 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Vladimir Matos, Appellant
13268 624/11.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 21, 2014.
121 A.D.3d 545
Tom, Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter, Kapnick.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.),[*546] rendered May 11, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree (two counts), assault in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The element of serious physical injury was satisfied by evidence supporting the conclusion that the wounds inflicted by defendant caused serious disfigurement to both victims’ faces under the standard set forth in People v McKinnon (15 NY3d 311, 315-316 [2010]). Photographs depicting the victims’ scars, medical testimony, testimony from the victims, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence as to each victim warranted the conclusion that the elements of Penal Law § 120.10 (2) were established (see People v Gumbs, 107 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1156 [2014]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims concerning the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.

Concur— Tom, J.P, Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.