Opinion
May 2, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's contention that the evidence failed to establish that he attempted to take the complainant's property is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245) and, in any event, is without merit. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the physical injury requirement of attempted robbery in the second degree was sufficiently established by the complainant's testimony and photographs of her injuries (see, Penal Law § 10.00; People v. Messier, 191 A.D.2d 819; People v. Pike, 173 A.D.2d 649; People v. Adams, 163 A.D.2d 318; People v Hope, 128 A.D.2d 638). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.