Opinion
1377 KA 14–00924
03-15-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Scott T. BITTLES, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, TREVETT CRISTO P.C. (ERIC M. DOLAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, TREVETT CRISTO P.C. (ERIC M. DOLAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a nonjury verdict, of assault in the third degree ( Penal Law § 120.00[1] ), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the People failed to establish that his actions, and not the actions of his codefendant, caused physical injury to the victim. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not " ‘specifically directed’ at the alleged error now raised on appeal" ( People v. Ford, 148 A.D.3d 1656, 1657, 50 N.Y.S.3d 226 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1079, 64 N.Y.S.3d 168, 86 N.E.3d 255 [2017], quoting People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ; see People v. Simmons, 133 A.D.3d 1227, 1227, 18 N.Y.S.3d 808 [4th Dept. 2015] ). In any event, we conclude that the contention lacks merit (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Delamota, 18 N.Y.3d 107, 113, 936 N.Y.S.2d 614, 960 N.E.2d 383 [2011] ), we conclude that " ‘there is a[ ] valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion ... [which] as a matter of law satisf[ies] the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime’ " of which defendant was convicted ( People v. Smith, 6 N.Y.3d 827, 828, 817 N.Y.S.2d 575, 850 N.E.2d 622 [2006], cert denied 548 U.S. 905, 126 S.Ct. 2971, 165 L.Ed.2d 953 [2006], quoting Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Here, the evidence establishes that defendant aided and shared a " ‘community of purpose’ " with the principal ( People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405, 412, 276 N.Y.S.2d 105, 222 N.E.2d 727 [1966] ; see Penal Law § 20.00 ; People v. Scott, 25 N.Y.3d 1107, 1110, 14 N.Y.S.3d 308, 35 N.E.3d 476 [2015] ) to intentionally cause physical injury to the victim (see § 120.00[1] ), who suffered such an injury, i.e., an "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain" (§ 10.00[9]; see People v. Chiddick, 8 N.Y.3d 445, 447, 834 N.Y.S.2d 710, 866 N.E.2d 1039 [2007] ).