People v. Branch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Branch

181 A.D.2d 902

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 30, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 902 (People v. Branch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Branch, 181 A.D.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.), rendered February 5, 1985, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we are satisfied that it was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant suffered "physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see, People v Harper, 145 AD2d 933, affd 75 NY2d 313; People v Contes, supra, at 621). As a result of being beaten with the metal handle of a cane on the head and face by the defendant, the complainant, who was described as bleeding profusely from the head and face, sustained an abrasion and swelling on the right side and rear portion of his skull, and a large swelling on his cheek in the area of his left eye. He was diagnosed as having a possible fracture in the area directly under his left eyeball and was given an ice pack and medication. He now wears corrective lenses as a result of this incident. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual [903]*903review power, we are satisfied that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.), rendered February 5, 1985, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we are satisfied that it was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant suffered "physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see, People v Harper, 145 AD2d 933, affd 75 NY2d 313; People v Contes, supra, at 621). As a result of being beaten with the metal handle of a cane on the head and face by the defendant, the complainant, who was described as bleeding profusely from the head and face, sustained an abrasion and swelling on the right side and rear portion of his skull, and a large swelling on his cheek in the area of his left eye. He was diagnosed as having a possible fracture in the area directly under his left eyeball and was given an ice pack and medication. He now wears corrective lenses as a result of this incident. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual [903]*903review power, we are satisfied that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-branch-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack