From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Powell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 1992
181 A.D.2d 924 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 30, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that there was legally sufficient evidence adduced at trial to establish that the complainant suffered "physical injury" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see, Matter of Philip A., 49 N.Y.2d 198, 200; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). The record establishes that the defendant hit the complainant with his fists several times in the face and chest with such force that his eyeglasses flew off of his face. The record also establishes that the complainant's face was bruised and swollen around the eye area as a result of the attacks. Moreover, the complainant testified that his injuries were "very pain[ful]", that the pain lasted four or five days, and that he lost one day from work (see, People v Rogers, 138 A.D.2d 419). 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). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Bracken and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Powell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 1992
181 A.D.2d 924 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Powell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HOWARD POWELL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 30, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 924 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 442

Citing Cases

People v. Tucker

The complainant also testified that she received medical treatment and that she was unable to go to work for…

People v. Person

In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. There is sufficient evidence in the record to…