Opinion
July 15, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that reversal is warranted because the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant reliably and accurately identified the defendant as the robber. However, since the defendant did not raise this ground in his motion for a trial order of dismissal, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's identity as the man who robbed the complainant (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969).
Further, we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant sustained physical injury in the course of the robbery. The complainant testified that he was placed in a chokehold, punched in the face and chest, swung by his arm into a fence and dragged onto a handball court which was sunken 18 inches into the ground. He testified that, as a result, he suffered pain in his wrist, his knee was bruised and bloodied, and he experienced pain for from three to four weeks (see, Penal Law § 160.10; § 10.00 [9]; see also, People v Greene, 70 N.Y.2d 860; People v Poe, 158 A.D.2d 558; People v McNair, 147 A.D.2d 593; People v Rogers, 138 A.D.2d 419).
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). Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.