| People v Ford |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01067 [114 AD3d 1273] |
| February 14, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tyrell Ford, Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D'Amico, J.),rendered January 31, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict,of assault in the second degree and harassment in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following anonjury trial of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [1]) andharassment in the second degree (§ 240.26 [1]). With respect to the assaultconviction, defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish thathe intended to cause serious physical injury to one of the victims. We reject thatcontention. " 'A defendant may be presumed to intend the natural and probableconsequences of his [or her] actions . . . , and [i]ntent may be inferred fromthe totality of conduct of the accused' " (People v Moreland, 103 AD3d 1275, 1276 [2013], lvdenied 21 NY3d 945 [2013]; see People v Meacham, 84 AD3d 1713, 1714 [2011], lvdenied 17 NY3d 808 [2011]). Here, several witnesses testified that defendantattacked the victim from behind and punched him in the face at least twice with a closedfist. During the altercation, defendant, who was approximately six feet five inches tall,weighed about 300 or 320 pounds, and was considerably larger than the victim, placedthe victim in a headlock, and then struck the victim in the face at least once while thevictim was thus immobilized. We conclude that one natural and probable consequence ofstriking someone under such circumstances is that the person will sustain a seriousphysical injury (see Meacham, 84 AD3d at 1714). Defendant also challenges thelegal sufficiency of the evidence on the issue whether the victim sustained a seriousphysical injury within the meaning of Penal Law §§ 120.05 (1) and 10.00(10). The People presented evidence establishing that the victim sustained two fracturesto his jaw, which required surgery and the permanent placement of a titanium plate in hischin. The victim's jaw was wired shut for four weeks, and the victim experiencednumbness in his chin that continued until the time of trial. Consequently, we concludethat the evidence of serious physical injury is legally sufficient to support the convictionof assault (see People vSantiago, 111 AD3d 1383, 1384-1385 [2013]; People v Johnson, 50 AD3d1537, 1537-1538 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 935 [2008]; see also Matter of Tirell R., 33AD3d 804, 805 [2006]).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime and the violation in thisnonjury trial (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's further contentionthat the court failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded when itdetermined that he intended to cause serious physical injury (see generally People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), and when it rejected his justification defense(see People v Moreno, 31AD3d 1214, 1214 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 869 [2006]). "It is well settledthat credibility determinations by the court . . . are entitled to greatdeference . . . , and minor inconsistencies in the testimony of certainprosecution witnesses do not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law" (People v Howard, 101 AD3d1749, 1750 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013] [internal quotation marksomitted]). Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.