People v. Reilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reilly

292 A.D.2d 399, 738 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2189

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 4, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered May 20, 1999, convicting him of assault in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of assault in the second degree. The People proved that the complainant lost consciousness and sustained a brain contusion, broken nose, concussion, and several facial lacerations, including one which required sutures and would leave a permanent scar. Upon admission to the hospital the complainant’s condition was considered to be “life threatening.” Accordingly, [400] there was sufficient evidence that the defendant caused serious physical injury (see, People v Briggs, 285 AD2d 514, lv denied 97 NY2d 679; People v Bailey, 275 AD2d 663; People v Martinez, 257 AD2d 667).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Gold-stein, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, 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, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered May 20, 1999, convicting him of assault in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of assault in the second degree. The People proved that the complainant lost consciousness and sustained a brain contusion, broken nose, concussion, and several facial lacerations, including one which required sutures and would leave a permanent scar. Upon admission to the hospital the complainant’s condition was considered to be “life threatening.” Accordingly, [400] there was sufficient evidence that the defendant caused serious physical injury (see, People v Briggs, 285 AD2d 514, lv denied 97 NY2d 679; People v Bailey, 275 AD2d 663; People v Martinez, 257 AD2d 667).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Gold-stein, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Reilly, 292 A.D.2d 399, 738 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

292 A.D.2d 399 (People v. Reilly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related