Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), rendered September 13, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the complainant did not sustain a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) was not raised at trial and, accordingly, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Garcia, 9 AD3d 470 , 471 [2004]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 , 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant sustained a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445 [2007]; People v Harvey, 309 AD2d 713 [2003]; cf. Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198 , 200 [1980]; Matter of Ashley M., 35 AD3d 612 , 613 [2006]).
Moreover, the defendant’s contention that certain comments
The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P, Angiolillo, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Gray 86 NY2d 10 p. 710
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 at 621 p. 710
- People v. Chiddick 8 NY3d 445 p. 710
- People v. Harvey 309 AD2d 713 p. 710
- In re Philip A. 49 NY2d 198 at 200 p. 710
- In re Ashley M. 35 AD3d 612 at 613 p. 710
- People v. Keller 238 AD2d 758 p. 711