section 10.00(10) serious physical injury in New York

2024We similarly reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to whether the officer sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) ( see generally Danielson , 9 NY3d at 349 ; Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495 ).

2019In any event, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d at 621 ), the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the medical evidence, was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(10) ( see People v Garland , 155 AD3d 527, 528 , affd 32 NY3d 1094 ; People v Lindsay , 131 AD3d 625, 626 ). [*2]Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d at 348-349

2025Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(10) in that she suffered serious and permanent disfigurement ( see People v McKinnon , 15 NY3d 311, 315 ; People v Gomez , 225 AD3d 710 , 712; People v Harwood , 183 AD3d 1281, 1282 ; People v Gadson , 190 AD2d 860, 861 ).

2024Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d at 621 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(10) ( see People v Lormil , 134 AD3d 958, 959 ).

2018In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9) ( see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445 ; People v Lumpkin , 154 AD3d 966 ; People v Martinez , 116 AD3d 983, 984 ; People v Terrero , 31 AD3d 672, 673 ), and that the defendant had the contemporaneous intent to commit a crime when he entered the victim's apartment ( see People v Roman , 154 AD3d 969 ; People v Van Praag , 153 AD3d 559, 560 ).

2017Contrary to the defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d at 447 ).

2019Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the count of assault in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d at 348 ; People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 ).

2017Moreover, upon our *561 independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of assault in the third degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348 ; People v Romero, 7 NY3d at 633 ).

2010The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of assault in the second degree because the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complaining police officer sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9), and that the defendant caused such injury as he violently resisted arrest (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Saeed, 60 AD3d 975, 977 [2009]; People v Alston, 42 AD3d 468, 469 [2007]).

2007The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the complainant suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) and that the defendant knowingly violated an order of protection (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]).

2023Further, defendant's testimony that the first victim pinned him down and was repeatedly punching his face and head could support a finding that defendant reasonably believed that such conduct presented an imminent threat of deadly force inasmuch as "[t]he natural and probable consequences of repeatedly striking a man while he is on the ground defenseless is that he will sustain a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (10)" ( People v Meacham , 84 AD3d 1713, 1714 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 808 [2011]; see Singh , 197 AD3d at 1335-1336 ).

2015“The natural and probable consequences of repeatedly striking a man while he is on the ground defenseless is that he will sustain serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (10)” (People v Meacham, 84 AD3d 1713, 1714 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 808 [2011]).

2015Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt by demonstrating that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (10) (see People v McLawrence, 114 AD3d 964 [2014]; People v Moreno, 233 AD2d 531 [1996]; People v Wright, 221 AD2d 577 [1995]; People v Meneses, 195 AD2d 527 [1993]).

2014Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the jury reasonably could have inferred that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (10) (see CPL 120.10 [1]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638, 658 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]; People v Moreno, 233 AD2d 531, 532 [1996]).

2014Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the jury reasonably could have inferred that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (10) (see CPL 120.10 [1]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638, 658 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]; People v Moreno, 233 AD2d 531, 532 [1996]).

2014Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the jury reasonably could have inferred that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (10) (see CPL 120.10 [1]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638, 658 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]; People v Moreno, 233 AD2d 531, 532 [1996]).

2024We similarly reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to whether the officer sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) ( see generally Danielson , 9 NY3d at 349 ; Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495 ).

2019In any event, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d at 621 ), the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the medical evidence, was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(10) ( see People v Garland , 155 AD3d 527, 528 , affd 32 NY3d 1094 ; People v Lindsay , 131 AD3d 625, 626 ). [*2]Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d at 348-349

2019In any event, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d at 621 ), the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the medical evidence, was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(10) ( see People v Garland , 155 AD3d 527, 528 , affd 32 NY3d 1094 ; People v Lindsay , 131 AD3d 625, 626 ). [*2]Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d at 348-349

2016Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), 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 [2006]; People v Lindsay, 131 AD3d 625, 626 [2015]).

2021Given the paucity of proof regarding the victim's injuries, we agree with defendant that the evidence fails to establish that the victim suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) so as to support the convictions under counts 1 and 4 of the indictment ( see People v Jimenez , 55 NY2d 895, 896 [1982]; People v McDowell , 28 NY2d 373, 375 [1971]; cf. Matter of Shawnell UU. , 240 AD2d 947, 948 [1997]; compare People v Guidice , 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]; People v Hogencamp , 300 AD2d 734, 735 [2002]).

2008The police officer further testified that, although he finished his shift and went on vacation, he went to the emergency room several days later because “it hurt to sleep” and there was a “pretty constant pain” in his nose. “[P]ain is subjective and different persons tolerate it differently” (People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]), and we conclude that the testimony of the police officer and his medical records constitute legally sufficient evidence to establish that he suffered “substantial pain” and thus sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People

2014Defendant cut the victim’s neck with a knife, causing bleeding and requiring stitches (see Terrero, 31 AD3d at 673 ; People v Amin, 294 AD2d 863, 863 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 672 [2002]; Mack, 268 AD2d at 600 ).

2014Defendant cut the victim’s neck with a knife, causing bleeding and requiring stitches (see Terrero, 31 AD3d at 673 ; People v Amin, 294 AD2d 863, 863 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 672 [2002]; Mack, 268 AD2d at 600 ).

2025Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor [*2]( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410 ; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

2019In any event, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d at 621 ), the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the medical evidence, was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(10) ( see People v Garland , 155 AD3d 527, 528 , affd 32 NY3d 1094 ; People v Lindsay , 131 AD3d 625, 626 ). [*2]Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d at 348-349

2011Under the circumstances of this case, the jury’s finding that the complainant suffered substantial pain and, thus, a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9), was against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198, 199-200 [1980]; People v Baksh, 43 AD3d 1072, 1073-1074 [2007]; People v DiStefano, 252 AD2d 530, 530-531 [1998]; cf. People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 446 [2007]; People v Williams, 23 AD3d 589, 590 [2005]; People v Piersa, 196 AD2d 896 , 897 [1993]).

2009As a result, the victim’s description of the pain he endured as a result of the defendant’s sexual assault was insufficient to establish physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198 [1980]; see also People v Tabachnik, 131 AD2d 611 [1987]; cf. People v Tomczak, 189 AD2d 926 [1993]).

2018In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9) ( see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445 ; People v Lumpkin , 154 AD3d 966 ; People v Martinez , 116 AD3d 983, 984 ; People v Terrero , 31 AD3d 672, 673 ), and that the defendant had the contemporaneous intent to commit a crime when he entered the victim's apartment ( see People v Roman , 154 AD3d 969 ; People v Van Praag , 153 AD3d 559, 560 ).

2014Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences to support the conclusion that the victim sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People v Terrero, 31 AD3d 672, 673 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 852 [2006]; People v Mack, 268 AD2d 599, 600 [2000]).

2017Inasmuch as the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence, defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to preserve defendant’s legal sufficiency challenge for our review (see People v Brown, 96 AD3d 1561, 1562 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]).

2017Inasmuch as the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence, defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to preserve defendant’s legal sufficiency challenge for our review (see People v Brown, 96 AD3d 1561, 1562 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012]).

2017In any event, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People v Smith, 45 AD3d 1483, 1483 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 771 [2008]), and that defendant is liable for the assaultive conduct of others under Penal Law § 20.00 (see People v Torres, 108 AD3d 474, 475 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 998 [2013]).

2017In any event, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People v Smith, 45 AD3d 1483, 1483 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 771 [2008]), and that defendant is liable for the assaultive conduct of others under Penal Law § 20.00 (see People v Torres, 108 AD3d 474, 475 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 998 [2013]).

2017In any event, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People v Smith, 45 AD3d 1483, 1483 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 771 [2008]), and that defendant is liable for the assaultive conduct of others under Penal Law § 20.00 (see People v Torres, 108 AD3d 474, 475 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 998 [2013]).

2017In any event, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People v Smith, 45 AD3d 1483, 1483 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 771 [2008]), and that defendant is liable for the assaultive conduct of others under Penal Law § 20.00 (see People v Torres, 108 AD3d 474, 475 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 998 [2013]).

2015Moreover, the proof adduced at trial established that defendant came “ ‘dangerously near’ ” to committing the completed crime (People v Kassebaum, 95 NY2d 611, 618 [2001], rearg denied 96 NY2d 854 [2001], cert denied 532 US 1069 [2001]; see also Penal Law § 110.00).

2015Moreover, the proof adduced at trial established that defendant came “ ‘dangerously near’ ” to committing the completed crime (People v Kassebaum, 95 NY2d 611, 618 [2001], rearg denied 96 NY2d 854 [2001], cert denied 532 US 1069 [2001]; see also Penal Law § 110.00).

2011We therefore conclude that the evidence established that each of the victims sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9), i.e., impairment of a physical condition or -2- 681 KA 07-02340 substantial pain (see People v Bowen, 17 AD3d 1054, 1055-1056 , lv denied 5 NY3d 759 ; People v Liggins, 2 AD3d 1325, 1326 ; cf. People v Velasquez, 202 AD2d 1037 , lv denied 83 NY2d 1008 , 84 NY2d 940 ), and thus that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

2011We therefore conclude that the evidence established that each of the victims sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9), i.e., impairment of a physical condition or substantial pain (see People v Bowen, 17 AD3d 1054, 1055-1056 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 759 [2005]; People v Liggins, 2 AD3d 1325, 1326 [2003]; cf. People v Velasquez, 202 AD2d 1037 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 1008 [1994], lv denied upon reconsideration 84 NY2d 940 [1994]), and thus that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2011We therefore conclude that the evidence established that each of the victims sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9), i.e., impairment of a physical condition or -2- 681 KA 07-02340 substantial pain (see People v Bowen, 17 AD3d 1054, 1055-1056 , lv denied 5 NY3d 759 ; People v Liggins, 2 AD3d 1325, 1326 ; cf. People v Velasquez, 202 AD2d 1037 , lv denied 83 NY2d 1008 , 84 NY2d 940 ), and thus that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

2011We therefore conclude that the evidence established that each of the victims sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9), i.e., impairment of a physical condition or substantial pain (see People v Bowen, 17 AD3d 1054, 1055-1056 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 759 [2005]; People v Liggins, 2 AD3d 1325, 1326 [2003]; cf. People v Velasquez, 202 AD2d 1037 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 1008 [1994], lv denied upon reconsideration 84 NY2d 940 [1994]), and thus that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).