Opinion
November 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the court improperly participated in the hearing proceeding (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the hearing court properly intervened in an effort to clarify the issues and facilitate the expeditious and orderly progress of the proceeding (see, People v Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944; People v Dominguez, 210 A.D.2d 249; People v Harrison, 151 A.D.2d 778). Additionally, the hearing court correctly determined that the showup identification procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v Dawson, 185 A.D.2d 854).
Also unpreserved for our review is the defendant's contention that his conviction of assault in the first degree should be reduced to assault in the second degree because the evidence was insufficient to support a showing of "serious physical injury" (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the testimony of the complainant that the gunshot wound to his shoulder resulted in nerve damage to his right arm causing loss of sensitivity in his right hand was legally sufficient to establish the "protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ" (Penal Law § 10.00; § 120.10 [4]; see, People v Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638; People v Palmer, 197 A.D.2d 712; People v Blunt, 176 A.D.2d 741). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.