Matter of Dominick V. (223 AD2d 453, 453 [1st Dept 1996]), which the dissent relies on for the proposition that "the absence of medical treatment is not dispositive," involved a complainant who testified as to his injuries. People v Deas (102 AD3d 464 (1st Dept 2013], lv denied 20 NY3d 1097 [2013]) involved a victim who testified at length as to the injuries to his shin and elbow. Similarly, the victims testified in People v Mullings (105 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 945 [2013] [victim had facial bruising or swelling which made it difficult for him to eat or to sleep]) and People v James (2 AD3d 291 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 741 [2004] [victim was punched in the face, causing pain, swelling, and headaches for a week]).
His conviction was affirmed on appeal. People v. Deas, 961 N.Y.S.2d 10 (1st Dep’t), lv. denied, 20 N.Y.3d 1097 (2013).
The statements defendant made to a police detective—"I can't talk no more" and "I've told you everything"—"when taken in context, [were] not an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent or a direction that he wished the interview to end" (People v Howard, 72 AD3d 1199, 1201 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 806 [2010]; see e.g. People v Cole, 59 AD3d 302, 302 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 924 [2009]; People v Allen, 147 AD2d 968, 968 [4th Dept 1989], lv denied 73 NY2d 1010 [1989], reconsideration denied 74 NY2d 660 [1989]; cf. People v Douglas, 8 AD3d 980, 980-981 [4th Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 705 [2004]). In any event, we conclude that any error by the court in refusing to suppress the statements made by defendant after he purportedly invoked his right to remain silent is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see People v Deas, 102 AD3d 464, 464 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 20 NY3d 1097 [2013]; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). We note that defendant made no admissions to the detective during his prolonged interview, and the videotape of defendant's police interview was not admitted in evidence at trial.
his right to remain silent or a direction that he wished the interview to end" ( People v. Howard, 72 A.D.3d 1199, 1201, 897 N.Y.S.2d 786 [3d Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 806, 908 N.Y.S.2d 165, 934 N.E.2d 899 [2010] ; see e.g.People v. Cole, 59 A.D.3d 302, 302, 873 N.Y.S.2d 603 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 924, 884 N.Y.S.2d 705, 912 N.E.2d 1086 [2009] ; People v. Allen, 147 A.D.2d 968, 968, 537 N.Y.S.2d 415 [4th Dept. 1989], lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1010, 541 N.Y.S.2d 765, 539 N.E.2d 593 [1989], reconsideration denied 74 N.Y.2d 660, 543 N.Y.S.2d 403, 541 N.E.2d 432 [1989] ; cf.People v. Douglas, 8 A.D.3d 980, 980–981, 778 N.Y.S.2d 622 [4th Dept. 2004], lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 705, 785 N.Y.S.2d 33, 818 N.E.2d 675 [2004] ).In any event, we conclude that any error by the court in refusing to suppress the statements made by defendant after he purportedly invoked his right to remain silent is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (seePeople v. Deas, 102 A.D.3d 464, 464, 961 N.Y.S.2d 10 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1097, 965 N.Y.S.2d 793, 988 N.E.2d 531 [2013] ; see generallyPeople v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ). We note that defendant made no admissions to the detective during his prolonged interview, and the videotape of defendant's police interview was not admitted in evidence at trial.
The evidence established the element of physical injury (see People v. Chiddick, 8 N.Y.3d 445, 447, 834 N.Y.S.2d 710, 866 N.E.2d 1039 [2007] ; People v. Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630, 636, 612 N.Y.S.2d 350, 634 N.E.2d 951 [1994] ). The victim testified that he was struck with enough force to knock him down, and in addition to an injury to his mouth, which caused him soreness and difficulty eating for three or four days, he had swelling under his eye (see e.g. People v. Mullings, 105 A.D.3d 407, 961 N.Y.S.2d 470 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 945, 968 N.Y.S.2d 7, 990 N.E.2d 141 [2013] ; People v. Deas, 102 A.D.3d 464, 961 N.Y.S.2d 10 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1097, 965 N.Y.S.2d 793, 988 N.E.2d 531 [2013] ; People v. Mercado, 94 A.D.3d 502, 941 N.Y.S.2d 501 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 999, 951 N.Y.S.2d 475, 975 N.E.2d 921 [2012] ). The evidence also supports conclusions that defendant took the victim's phone during the attack, and that defendant used force for the purpose of stealing the phone.