The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence that showed defendant's use of force occurred "immediately" after he shoplifted the merchandise and was for the purpose of overcoming resistance to his retention thereof (Penal Law § 160.00), notwithstanding that the altercation occurred some 10 minutes after the taking and some four blocks away. The store security guard testified that he pursued defendant immediately after alerting other employees and apprehended him as soon as he could ( see, People v. Dekle, 83 A.D.2d 522, affd 56 N.Y.2d 835). That defendant never discarded the property supports an inference that his use of force was not merely to escape or defend himself ( cf., People v. Nixon, 156 A.D.2d 144, 146, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 870). Also legally sufficient was the evidence of physical injury, namely the complainant's testimony that as result of defendant's unprovoked aggression of kneeing him in the groin and squeezing his testicles, he experienced such severe pain that he could not initially stand up and thereafter stomach cramps and nausea for several days ( see, People v. Valentine, 212 A.D.2d 399, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 944; People v. Dailey, 222 A.D.2d 278). "The fact that the witness did not seek medical treatment is not dispositive." ( People v. DeChamps, 219 A.D.2d 485, 486, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 841.)

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.