Opinion
November 30, 1987
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Greenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant claims that Family Court erred in refusing to allow his counsel to cross-examine the complainant as to a prior inconsistent statement. The appellant was accused of attempting to snatch the complainant's pocketbook with two other youths and injuring her in the process. The complainant had previously told the Probation Department that the appellant was present with the other youths but did not do the actual snatching. The appellant's counsel was not permitted to impeach the complainant with this statement. However, the probation officer who took the complainant's statement was called by the appellant and he testified as to its contents.
Although limiting the scope of the fundamental right of cross-examination is error (see, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308), we find the error herein to be harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Given the eyewitness testimony of two police officers and the appellant's own testimony, it cannot be said that the outcome would have differed if the error had not occurred.
The appellant also alleges that physical injury was not established to support the charge of assault in the second degree. The complainant, a 72-year-old woman, testified at the hearing that she still felt pain in her arm six weeks after the incident. Such evidence was sufficient to fulfill the subjective-objective test for physical injury (see, People v Thompkins, 97 A.D.2d 593).
We have examined the appellant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.