People v. Desantis

Full title: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lawrence DeSANTIS, appellant.

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: May 29, 2013

106 A.D.3d 1100 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

106 A.D.3d 1100

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3848

Opinion

2013-05-29

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lawrence DeSANTIS, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Deborah Wassel of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Deborah Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered February 14, 2011, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal mischief in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his conviction of assault in the second degree should be reversed since the evidence of “[p]hysical injury” (Penal Law § 10.00[9] ) was legally insufficient. That contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant sustained a physical injury ( seePenal Law § 10.00[9]; People v. Chiddick, 8 N.Y.3d 445, 447–448, 834 N.Y.S.2d 710, 866 N.E.2d 1039;People v. Boucher, 97 A.D.3d 597, 947 N.Y.S.2d 340;People v. Dorce, 92 A.D.3d 692, 937 N.Y.S.2d 885;People v. Robinson, 75 A.D.3d 567, 903 N.Y.S.2d 919;People v. Williams, 69 A.D.3d 662, 662–663, 892 N.Y.S.2d 478;People v. Sheppard, 202 A.D.2d 701, 702, 609 N.Y.S.2d 318;People v. Daniels, 199 A.D.2d 332, 605 N.Y.S.2d 106;People v. Maturevitz, 149 A.D.2d 908, 909, 540 N.Y.S.2d 44;People v. Williams, 112 A.D.2d 176, 176–177, 490 N.Y.S.2d 854).

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to assault in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902;People v. Boucher, 97 A.D.3d at 597, 947 N.Y.S.2d 340;People v. Daniels, 199 A.D.2d 332, 605 N.Y.S.2d 106;People v. Dorce, 92 A.D.3d 692, 937 N.Y.S.2d 885;People v. Robinson, 75 A.D.3d 567, 903 N.Y.S.2d 919).