Summary
holding that the portion of the complainant's hospital records indicating that the complainant had "[c]laimed he was hit with a fist, and there was a metal object in the fist" was relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of the complaint's injuries
Summary of this case from People v. SwingerOpinion
January 13, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Hanley, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05). At trial, the complainant testified that immediately after he was punched by the defendant, he saw that the defendant was holding a printer's guide inside his fist. The jury could properly conclude that the printer's guide, a solid metal cylindrical object measuring approximately two inches in length and weighing about one and one-half pounds, which was used to reinforce the impact of the fist blow, was "readily capable of causing serious physical injury" and, thus, was a "dangerous instrument" pursuant to Penal Law § 10.00 (13) (see, People v. Galvin, 65 N.Y.2d 761, 762; People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113, 116). Furthermore, there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the complainant suffered "physical injury" since the complainant's vision in his left eye was impaired as a result of the assault (see, Penal Law § 10.00; People v. Murray, 156 A.D.2d 722; People v. Lundquist, 151 A.D.2d 505; People v Singleton, 140 A.D.2d 388).
Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). While there were certain inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88).
The trial court did not err in admitting, pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see, CPLR 4518), that portion of the complainant's hospital records indicating that the complainant had "[c]laimed he was hit with a fist, and there was a metal object in the fist". This statement was relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of the complainant's injuries (see, People v. Singleton, supra). Any error in admitting other portions of the hospital record was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) or are without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Harwood, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.