In re Sean C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sean C.

124 A.D.2d 583, 507 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61892

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 3, 1986·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

At the trial, the 11-year-old complainant testified that as a result of appellant’s attack on him, he was "hurting badly” and was confined to bed for a period of approximately one month. His hospital records, which were admitted into evidence, established that he suffered from soft-tissue damage on his abdominal walls. This we find was sufficient to establish that he suffered physical injury as is defined by Penal Law § 10.00 (9) and was further sufficient to establish physical injury, an element of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]) and assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [6]) as charged. Furthermore, we note that contrary to the appellant’s assertions, the Trial Judge’s brief question of the complainant regarding his injuries did not deny the appellant his right to a fair trial. This questioning was directed at clarifying the complainant’s previous ambivalent testimony and was asked to insure that a just determination was reached (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 56-57; People v Cruz, 100 AD2d 518). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

At the trial, the 11-year-old complainant testified that as a result of appellant’s attack on him, he was "hurting badly” and was confined to bed for a period of approximately one month. His hospital records, which were admitted into evidence, established that he suffered from soft-tissue damage on his abdominal walls. This we find was sufficient to establish that he suffered physical injury as is defined by Penal Law § 10.00 (9) and was further sufficient to establish physical injury, an element of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]) and assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [6]) as charged. Furthermore, we note that contrary to the appellant’s assertions, the Trial Judge’s brief question of the complainant regarding his injuries did not deny the appellant his right to a fair trial. This questioning was directed at clarifying the complainant’s previous ambivalent testimony and was asked to insure that a just determination was reached (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 56-57; People v Cruz, 100 AD2d 518). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

In re Sean C., 124 A.D.2d 583, 507 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

124 A.D.2d 583 (In re Sean C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related