Opinion
387 KA 20-00983
06-09-2023
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie D. MCKOY, Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)
CAMBARERI & BRENNECK, SYRACUSE (MELISSA K. SWARTZ OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
CAMBARERI & BRENNECK, SYRACUSE (MELISSA K. SWARTZ OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, MONTOUR, OGDEN, AND GREENWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree ( Penal Law § 120.05 [7] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Specifically, the People presented evidence including the victim's medical records, the testimony of the victim, and a video recording of the incident, which established that defendant struck and kicked the victim repeatedly, leaving him with a fractured nose, contusions on his head and chest, and a temporary loss of vision, with minor visual impairment continuing through the time of the trial. This evidence establishes that the victim suffered a "[p]hysical injury" as defined in Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People v. Vives , 1 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 767 N.Y.S.2d 359 [4th Dept. 2003] ; see also People v. McIntosh , 158 A.D.3d 1289, 1290, 71 N.Y.S.3d 778 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1015, 78 N.Y.S.3d 285, 102 N.E.3d 1066 [2018] ). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Finally, contrary to defendant's contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.