| People v Valentin |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03482 [95 AD3d 1373] |
| May 3, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| 2—The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v PattiR. Valentin, Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas J. Evanovich of counsel), forappellant.
Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lawliss, J.), rendered February 7,2011 in Clinton County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault in the thirddegree, attempted assault in the third degree, endangering the welfare of a child (two counts) andcriminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
In August 2010, defendant allegedly struck her daughter (born in 2003) several times with anelectronic charger cable and kicked her son (born in 2002) in the eye. Defendant was thereaftercharged with assault in the third degree (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child (twocounts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. During a jury trial in theIntegrated Domestic Violence Part of Supreme Court, the court partially granted defendant's trialmotion to dismiss by reducing the charge pertaining to the son from assault in the third degree toattempted assault in the third degree. Defendant was convicted of this reduced charge and theremaining charges, and was sentenced to three concurrent nine-month terms of incarceration andtwo concurrent 90-day terms of incarceration to be served consecutively to the nine-month terms.
Defendant appeals, asserting that the convictions are against the weight of the evidence as thechildren sustained their injuries accidentally while they were in a babysitter's care. In evaluatingthis claim where, as here, a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, this Court "must,like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting [*2]testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences thatmay be drawn from the testimony" (People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006] [internal quotationmarks and citation omitted]; see Peoplev Gragnano, 63 AD3d 1437, 1440-1441 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 939 [2010]).Essentially, defendant challenges her daughter's credibility.
The daughter testified that, on the day of the incident, defendant punished her for failing toclean her room by striking her four times with the plug portion of a Nintendo charger cord, andthat, on the same day, defendant punished the son by making him do pushups and, while he didso, defendant kicked him in the eye. She testified that defendant instructed her not to tell herfather what had happened, and to tell him that the bruises on her back had been incurred at thebabysitter's house. The daughter further testified that she had also scratched her back at thebabysitter's house, a separate injury. The babysitter testified that the son and daughter werejumping on a mattress at her home when the son struck his eye on the bed, causing a mark andswelling. Soon thereafter, the daughter reported that she had scratched her back. The babysitterlifted the daughter's shirt to examine this injury and saw, in addition to scratches on her upperback or underarm, bruises "already there" in a straight line across her lower back as well as redmarks that the babysitter described as "strawberry blotches" on her rib cage. This testimony wassupported by photographs taken by a caseworker several days later showing a line of bruises onthe daughter's lower back and the caseworker's testimony as to her observations of these injuries.Defendant contends that all of the daughter's injuries must have been sustained at the babysitter'shouse, based upon testimony from her grandparents that they saw her playing comfortably earlierin the day with no sign of discomfort or distress. However, this Court accords great deference tothe jury's opportunity to hear the testimony of witnesses and its resulting assessments of theircredibility. Viewing the evidence in a neutral light, we cannot say that the verdict was against theweight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d at 644-645; People v McCoy, 89 AD3d 1218,1221 [2011]; People v Soulia, 263 AD2d 869, 872 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d829 [1999]).
Next, defendant contends that her conviction of assault in the third degree was not supportedby legally sufficient evidence that the daughter suffered a physical injury (see Penal Law§ 120.00 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve this claim by renewing her trial motion todismiss following her presentation of evidence (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 62[2001]; People v Fisher, 89 AD3d1135, 1136 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 883 [2012]). In any event, we find no reasonto disturb the jury's conclusion that the daughter suffered "substantial pain" (Penal Law §10.00 [9]; see People v Chiddick, 8NY3d 445, 447 [2007]; People vRivera, 42 AD3d 587, 588 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 880 [2007]; People v Williamson, 21 AD3d575, 575-576 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 761 [2005]).
Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Spain and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.