People v. Ruttenbur

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ruttenbur

112 A.D.2d 13, 490 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50641

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

DecidedJune 4, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 13 (People v. Ruttenbur) 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. Ruttenbur, 112 A.D.2d 13, 490 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: We have reviewed the issues raised by defendant in his pro se brief and we find all, except one, without merit. Defendant contends that the People failed to prove that the three police officers he allegedly assaulted with a pocket knife sustained physical injuries as defined by Penal Law § 10.00 (9). We conclude that the bruises suffered by Officer Webster, which were “very painful” for three or four days, and the deeper cut to Sergeant Rossolo’s head, which caused “sharp pain” and required three or four stitches, qualify as physical injuries. The People failed to prove, however, that the superficial scratches on Sergeant Ruggles’ facé so qualified. No details were given concerning the extent of these scratches and the sergeant’s testimony that they caused him “discomfort or pain” did not meet the statutory requirement of “substantial pain” (see, People v Jimenez, 55 NY2d 895;Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198).

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by reversing the conviction of assault in the second degree based upon the third count in the indictment, by dismissing that count, and by vacating the sentence imposed thereon. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J. — assault, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: We have reviewed the issues raised by defendant in his pro se brief and we find all, except one, without merit. Defendant contends that the People failed to prove that the three police officers he allegedly assaulted with a pocket knife sustained physical injuries as defined by Penal Law § 10.00 (9). We conclude that the bruises suffered by Officer Webster, which were “very painful” for three or four days, and the deeper cut to Sergeant Rossolo’s head, which caused “sharp pain” and required three or four stitches, qualify as physical injuries. The People failed to prove, however, that the superficial scratches on Sergeant Ruggles’ facé so qualified. No details were given concerning the extent of these scratches and the sergeant’s testimony that they caused him “discomfort or pain” did not meet the statutory requirement of “substantial pain” (see, People v Jimenez, 55 NY2d 895;Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198).

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by reversing the conviction of assault in the second degree based upon the third count in the indictment, by dismissing that count, and by vacating the sentence imposed thereon. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J. — assault, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 13, 490 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ruttenbur-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack