| Matter of Imani Mc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07936 [78 AD3d 705] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Imani Mc., Appellant. |
—[*1] Ronald L. Wozniak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Linda Fakhoury of counsel), forrespondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from anorder of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Posner, J.), datedSeptember 16, 2009, which, after a hearing, found that the appellant committed acts which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted assault in the second degree and assault in the thirddegree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed her on probation for a period of 18months.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the presentment agency's contention, the appellant's argument that the complainant didnot sustain a "physical injury" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) is preserved forappellate review, since the appellant's attorney's arguments in moving to dismiss the petition weresufficiently specific to alert the Family Court to the appellant's position (cf. CPL 470.05 [2];People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]; see also People v Rose, 41 AD3d 742, 742 [2007]; People v Blocker, 23 AD3d 575, 575[2005]). However, contrary to the appellant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d 1075,1075-1076 [2010]; Matter of Eddie J.,68 AD3d 870 [2009]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish, beyond areasonable doubt, the "physical injury" element of the crimes of assault in the second degree and assaultin the third degree (see Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; § 120.00 [1]; § 120.05[2]). In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Stanley F., 76 AD3d1067 [2010]; Matter of Hasan C.,59 AD3d 617, 617-618 [2009]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we nevertheless accord greatdeference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see Matter of Stanley F., 76AD3d 1067 [2010]; Matter of DanielR., 51 AD3d 933 [2008]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not againstthe weight of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]). The evidence established that the complainant was attacked by a group of girls who punchedher, and, when she fell to the ground, kicked and punched her repeatedly. As a result of the attack, thecomplainant sustained a sprained left wrist that was still sprained at the time of the fact-[*2]finding hearing, more than eight months after the attack. She experiencedback and neck pain. She also had a "big knot" on her head and a large bump on the side of her facefrom being punched. Additionally, the complainant's chest was bruised, and she testified that it hurt "alot." The complainant testified that she experienced pain for three to four days after the attack. Even inthe absence of expert medical testimony (seePeople v Gordon, 47 AD3d 833, 834 [2008]; People v Thomas, 195 AD2d 581,582 [1993]), this evidence was sufficient to support the determination that the complainant sustained a"physical injury" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see Matter of Ismaila M., 34 AD3d373, 374 [2006]; Matter of Jason J., 187 AD2d 652, 653 [1992]; cf. People v Wade, 41 AD3d 288,288 [2007]; People v Morales, 245 AD2d 467, 468 [1997]; People v Carter, 219AD2d 732, 732-733 [1995]; People v Thomas, 195 AD2d at 581-582).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo andDickerson, JJ., concur.