People v Henderson
2010 NY Slip Op 06860 [77 AD3d 1311]
October 1, 2010
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 15, 2010


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lynn Henderson,Appellant.

[*1]Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Grazina Myers of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), rendered July 31,2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the first degree and assaultin the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of onecount of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]) and two counts of assault in thesecond degree (§ 120.05 [2]). Contrary to defendant's contention with respect to count three ofthe indictment, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained aphysical injury (see § 10.00 [9]; § 120.05 [2]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445,447-448 [2007]). The evidence presented at trial established that defendant struck the victimrepeatedly with a baseball bat, resulting in an injury to the victim's arm that caused the victim "more thanslight or trivial pain" (Chiddick, 8 NY3d at 447). We further conclude that, when defendantmoved for substitution of counsel, County Court made the requisite inquiry to determine whetherdefendant had good cause for substitution (see People v Frayer, 215 AD2d 862, 862-863[1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 794 [1995]). The record establishes that "the court affordeddefendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning his . . . attorney, and thecourt thereafter reasonably concluded that defendant's . . . objections had no merit orsubstance" (People v Singletary, 63AD3d 1654 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 839 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted];see People v Reese, 23 AD3d1034, 1035 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 779 [2006]). Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey,Sconiers, Pine and Gorski, JJ.


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.