Opinion
02-10-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angel HILL, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Sherry A. Chase of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. Michael J. Flaherty, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas Texido of Counsel), for respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Sherry A. Chase of Counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Michael J. Flaherty, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas Texido of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00[1] ). Defendant's general motion for a trial order of dismissal did not preserve for our review her contentions that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that the victim sustained a physical injury (see People v. Lewis, 129 A.D.3d 1546, 1547, 12 N.Y.S.3d 678, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 969, 18 N.Y.S.3d 605, 40 N.E.3d 583 ), and that she is liable for the conduct of friends and family members based upon a theory of accessorial liability (see People v. Crawford, 199 A.D.2d 406, 406, 605 N.Y.S.2d 327 ). In any event, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), is legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9) (see People v. Smith, 45 A.D.3d 1483, 1483, 845 N.Y.S.2d 655, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 771, 854 N.Y.S.2d 333, 883 N.E.2d 1268 ), and that defendant is liable for the assaultive conduct of others under Penal Law § 20.00 (see People v. Torres, 108 A.D.3d 474, 475, 969 N.Y.S.2d 462, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 998, 981 N.Y.S.2d 4, 3 N.E.3d 1172 ).
Inasmuch as the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence, defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to preserve defendant's legal sufficiency challenge for our review (see People v. Brown, 96 A.D.3d 1561, 1562, 946 N.Y.S.2d 761, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 1024, 953 N.Y.S.2d 557, 978 N.E.2d 109 ). With respect to the further alleged instances of ineffectiveness, we conclude that the record as a whole establishes that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ; People v. Carrasquillo, 142 A.D.3d 1359, 1359, 38 N.Y.S.3d 340 ).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, and SCUDDER, JJ., concur.