Opinion
July 1, 1985
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient to disprove her defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 528). However, the testimony of complainant, which the Family Court was entitled to credit, indicated that appellant not only struck the first blow of the altercation, but that she continued to be aggressive and finally cut complainant in the back with an object resembling a hook. This testimony, in addition to other evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing, was sufficient to sustain the Family Court's determination regarding assault in the third degree ( see, Matter of Isaac W., 89 A.D.2d 831; Penal Law § 120.00). Furthermore, the defense of justification is inapplicable here because there is ample evidence that the physical force used by appellant was "the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law" (Penal Law § 35.15 [c]). Thus, there is no basis for appellant's justification defense.
We have reviewed appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., O'Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.