Opinion
July 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the People adduced legally sufficient evidence that the complainant suffered physical injury (see, Penal Law § 10.00), a necessary element of the charge of attempted robbery in the second degree. Indeed, the subjective testimony of the complainant revealed that she was grabbed by the neck, pushed to the ground, repeatedly punched in the head, and continuously hit in the back with a long stick by the defendant and another unidentified participant as they grabbed at the chains around her neck. The complainant also testified that as a result of the attack, her back was swollen and bruised, she had lumps on her head, she vomited several times, and she suffered from persistent headaches and pain for about two weeks following the incident. Her testimony was corroborated by that of her husband, who testified that the complainant suffered from "knots in her head and vomiting and her back was very sore". Moreover, the evidence indicated that, although the complainant did not go to the hospital for medical treatment, she did receive medical assistance from the ambulance team which arrived after the attack. This evidence, even in the absence of medical testimony, is sufficient to sustain a finding of "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain" (Penal Law § 10.00) necessary to support a finding of physical injury (see, People v Bogan, 70 N.Y.2d 860; Matter of Christopher T., 156 A.D.2d 190; People v. Weatherly, 144 A.D.2d 509; cf., Matter of Philip A., 49 N.Y.2d 198).
Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). 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).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.