| People v Felipe |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07656 [66 AD3d 919] |
| October 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ezequiel Felipe, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Gary Fidel, John M. Castellano,and Jill Gross-Marks of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Cooperman, J.), rendered September 29, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree androbbery in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the complainant's testimony that he was choked andlost consciousness for 20 to 25 minutes, that his hands, body, and neck were "very painful,"following a series of punches, and that he sustained bruising and pain over his body, wassufficient to establish physical injury as defined by Penal Law § 10.00 (9) and, thus,supports the defendant's conviction of robbery in the second degree under the fourth count of theindictment (see People v Chiddick,8 NY3d 445 [2007]; People vWilliams, 46 AD3d 1115, 1117 [2007]; People v Cannon, 300 AD2d 407, 408[2002]; People v Williams, 294 AD2d 312 [2002]). Upon our independent reviewpursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on this count was not againstthe weight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The trial court properly granted the People's Batson challenge (see Batson vKentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; see also Georgia v McCollum, 505 US 42, 59 [1992];People v Luciano, 10 NY3d499, 503 [2008]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638, 653 [1990]). The trial court'sdetermination that the proffered reason for challenging the juror in question was pretextual isentitled to great deference and is supported by the record (see People v Clarke, 64 AD3d 612 [2009]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in allowing the People toquestion each alibi witness about her delay in coming forward with exculpatory evidence. ThePeople laid the proper foundation (see People v Miller, 89 NY2d 1077, 1079 [1997];People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 321 [1980]; People v Stokes, 282 AD2d 553[2001]), and there was no representation that the witnesses were explicitly instructed to remainsilent by the defendant's attorney (see People v Miller, 89 NY2d at 1079; People vDawson, 50 NY2d at 322).[*2]
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review hischallenges to remarks made by the prosecutor during summation, except for the one comment towhich he objected (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bryan, 55 AD3d 921 [2008]). With regard to the onepreserved challenge, any error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230[1975]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.