| People v Haith |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07478 [44 AD3d 369] |
| October 9, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v OssieHaith, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Eleanor J. Ostrow of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., on motions for newcounsel; Renee A. White, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 1, 2005, convictingdefendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years,unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence. The element of physical injury was established by evidence that defendant repeatedlypulled the strap of the victim's bag, knocked her to the ground and dragged her along the street,causing abrasions, bruising and swelling (see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445 [2007]; People vHenderson, 92 NY2d 677 [1999]). The victim's testimony, itself, supported the conclusionthat she sustained substantial pain (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).Moreover, this Court has viewed photographs introduced at trial, which reveal injuries thatwould be expected to cause "more than slight or trivial pain" (People v Chiddick, 8NY3d at 447).
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's requests for substitutecounsel since defendant failed to establish good cause (see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507 [2004]). In each instance, thecourt conducted a proper inquiry by asking defendant to furnish particulars about his counsel'salleged deficiencies, but defendant was unable to do so. After exploring defendant's complaints,the court reasonably concluded that defendant's general objections about a lack ofcommunication with counsel were without merit or substance.
For the reasons stated in our decision in People v Lemos (34 AD3d 343 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d924 [2007]), we find unpreserved defendant's argument that the court unlawfully [*2]imposed a mandatory surcharge and fees when it did so only inwriting, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would findit without merit. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Marlow, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.