| People v Nelson |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00286 [69 AD3d 762] |
| January 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Aaron Nelson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, andChin-Ho Cheng of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler,J.), rendered April 18, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove that he inflicted physical injuryduring the robbery (see Penal Law § 160.10 [2]) is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendantinflicted "physical injury" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9). Moreover, uponour independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The evidencepresented as to the nature of the complainant's injury, the manner in which the injury wasinflicted, and the duration of the pain she suffered, provided the jury with a sufficient basis toinfer that the complainant suffered "substantial pain" (Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; seePeople v Vasquez, 297 AD2d 297, 298 [2002]; see also People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447-448 [2007]; People v Krotoszynski, 43 AD3d450, 452-453 [2007]).
The trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to elicit testimony from the arrestingofficer, over defense counsel's objection, that the defendant did not provide the officer, at anytime during the arrest process, with certain facts (see People v Basora, 75 NY2d 992,993 [1990]; People v Lippolis, 246 AD2d 557 [1998]; People v Robinson, 191AD2d 595, 596 [1993]). However, we find that the error was harmless because there wasoverwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the errorcontributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People v Romero, 54 AD3d 781,781 [2008]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkinand Sgroi, JJ., concur.