| People v Martinez |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02802 [116 AD3d 983] |
| April 23, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christian Martinez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, EllenC. Abbot, and Brooke E. Barnes of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Griffin, J.), rendered June 14, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree(two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish hisguilt on either count of robbery in the second degree because the People failed toestablish that he forcibly stole any property (see Penal Law § 160.10).However, since the defendant did not advance this argument with any specificity beforethe trial court, it is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Kearney, 25 AD3d622 [2006]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish that the defendant forcibly stole the complainant's cellphone.
Alternatively, the defendant argues that the evidence was legally insufficient toestablish his guilt on the second count of robbery in the second degree because thePeople failed to establish that he inflicted physical injury upon the complainant duringthe robbery (see Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]). Again, however, viewing theevidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60NY2d at 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendantinflicted "substantial pain" and, therefore, "physical injury" (Penal Law § 10.00[9]) upon the complainant. The complainant testified that the defendant, acting withanother person, followed him, demanded his property, threatened to kill him, and thenpunched and kicked him in the face numerous times and for several minutes. Thecomplainant fell to the ground, lost his glasses, sustained swelling and bleeding to hisface, nose, and mouth, and later that night went to the hospital in pain (see People v Chiddick, 8NY3d 445 [2007]; People vNelson, 69 AD3d 762 [2010]; People v Williams, 69 AD3d 662 [2010]; People v Stapleton, 33 AD3d464 [2006]). Notably, the testimony concerning the injuries sustained wascorroborated by a police officer who arrived shortly after the incident (see People v Rambali, 27AD3d 582 [2006]). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the jury couldreasonably infer that the defendant intended to inflict as much pain as possible in order tocause the complainant [*2]to release his hold on hisproperty (see People vChiddick, 8 NY3d 445 [2007]; People v Williams, 69 AD3d 662 [2010]).
Finally, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfiedthat the verdict of guilt with respect to both counts of robbery in the second degree wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The minordiscrepancies in the complainant's testimony cited by the defendant were matters to beconsidered by the jury in assessing the complainant's credibility (see People v Green, 107 AD3d915, 916 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1088 [2014]; People v Jordan, 44 AD3d875, 876 [2007]). Dickerson, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.