People v Andino
2010 NY Slip Op 04604 [73 AD3d 1195]
May 25, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 30, 2010


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Rodolfo Andino, Appellant.

[*1]Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Berko of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, and Brooke E. Barnes of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.),rendered July 19, 2006, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, assault in the seconddegree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconviction of assault in the second degree because the People failed to prove beyond areasonable doubt that the complainant sustained a "physical injury" is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that thecomplainant sustained a physical injury beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law§ 10.00 [9]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447-448 [2007]; People vNelson, 69 AD3d 762, 763 [2010]).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of his right to the effectiveassistance of counsel (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; see alsoStrickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Skelos, J.P., Covello, Hall and Sgroi, JJ.,concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.