Opinion
November 28, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference ( People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), the eyewitness testimony that the defendant, known to the eyewitnesses from the neighborhood, shot the victim multiple times in a courtyard below the witnesses' window, amply established defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses were properly placed before the jury for their consideration, and did not render the verdict against the weight of the evidence ( People v Aviles, 182 A.D.2d 577, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 760).
The evidence was also sufficient to establish that one of the victims, whom defendant struck in the face with a gun, sustained "physical injury" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9). In addition to the photographs of the victim's injury shown to the jury, there was testimony that the victim developed "a big bruise on his face black and blue", that the blow made him "a little bit blind," and that even at the time of trial, 14 months later, the victim didn't "see so well". This evidence proved that the victim sustained an "impairment of physical condition", and permitted the jury to infer that he suffered "substantial pain" (Penal Law § 10.00; see, People v Mack, 210 A.D.2d 70, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 911; People v Goode, 179 A.D.2d 676, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001).
People v Washington ( 86 N.Y.2d 189) is dispositive of the issue raised in defendant's motion to vacate judgment.
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.