People v. Etah (Lawrence)

69 Misc. 3d 132(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 51213(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: October 8, 2020
• Docket: 2017-1891 N CR
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Etah (2020 NY Slip Op 51213(U)) [*1]

People v Etah (Lawrence)

2020 NY Slip Op 51213(U) [69 Misc 3d 132(A)]

Decided on October 8, 2020

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 8, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ
2017-1891 N CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Lawrence N. Etah, Appellant.

Nassau County Legal Aid Society (Tammy Feman and Dori Cohen of counsel), for appellant. Nassau County District Attorney (Monica M. C. Leiter and Autumn S. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Susan T. Kluewer, J.), rendered August 21, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the third degree, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]). On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support the conviction, as the People failed to prove the required element of "physical injury" (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925, 926 [1994]). The element of physical injury was established by evidence that the complainant experienced substantial pain (see Penal [*2]Law § 10.00 [9]). Further, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of assault in the third degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 8, 2020