| People v Adamson |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03273 [127 AD3d 566] |
| April 21, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Alty Adamson, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Richard Joselson ofcounsel), for appellant.
Alty Adamson, appellant pro se.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Hope Korenstein of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), renderedNovember 3, 2011, as amended December 5, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jurytrial, of assault in the second and third degrees, petit larceny and criminal possession ofstolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felonyoffender to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.
We reject defendant's challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidencesupporting the element of physical injury with regard to one of the victims (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant struck this victim in the head with a40-pound bench, resulting in a one-inch gash that bled extensively and required fourstaples to close. Viewed objectively, an injury caused in that manner "would normally beexpected to bring with it more than a little pain" (People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]).
The court properly exercised its discretion when it inquired whether the jury hadagreed upon a verdict as to any of the counts (see e.g. People v Brown, 1 AD3d 147 [1st Dept 2003],lv denied 1 NY3d 625 [2004]; People v Mendez, 221 AD2d 162, 163 [1stDept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 923 [1996]). That inquiry was separate from itsresponse to the jury's note requesting a readback of certain testimony, as to which thecourt had fully complied with the requirements of People v O'Rama (78 NY2d270 [1991]). Even if the court's inquiry about a possible verdict could be deemed part ofthe court's response to the note, there was still no mode of proceedings error. Althoughthe court did not announce to counsel its intention to make this inquiry, it had alreadyfulfilled its "core responsibility" under People v Kisoon (8 NY3d 129, 135 [2007]). Accordingly,preservation was required (seePeople v Williams, 21 NY3d 932, 934-935 [2013]), and we decline to reviewdefendant's unpreserved claim in the [*2]interest ofjustice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.
We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims. Concur—Tom,J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.