People v Williams
2010 NY Slip Op 09183 [79 AD3d 537]
December 14, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 16, 2011


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

[*1]Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Susan H. Salomon of counsel),for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (T. Charles Won of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lester B. Adler, J.), rendered April 30, 2008,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, attempted assault in the seconddegree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to anaggregate term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence was legally sufficient to establish the element of intent to cause physical injury.Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that the victim sustainedphysical injury, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, welikewise find that the evidence was legally sufficient. We also find, with regard to both issues, that theverdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is nobasis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The evidence supported the inference that whendefendant fired at the victim and inflicted a head wound, he did so with, at a bare minimum, the intent tocause physical injury, especially since the credible evidence showed that defendant continued to fire hisweapon as the victim turned and fled (see e.g. People v Santana, 70 AD3d 448 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d844 [2010]). The evidence also amply established that the victim's head wound caused "more thanslight or trivial pain" (People v Chiddick,8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]), thus satisfying the physical injury element (Penal Law § 10.00[9]).

Defendant's contentions regarding his registration under the Gun Offender Registration Act(Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-601 et seq.) are not reviewable on this appeal[*2]because the registration is not part of the judgment of conviction(see People v Smith, 69 AD3d 450[2010], lv granted 14 NY3d 844 [2010]); in any event, they are both unpreserved and withoutmerit (see id. at 451). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman andManzanet-Daniels, 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.