| People v Webster |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 05178 [140 AD3d 1196] |
| June 29, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Javaas Webster, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L.Mandel, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered March 28, 2014, convicting her of attempted assault in thefirst degree, assault in the second degree, menacing in the second degree (two counts),and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthe defendant's guilt of assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (PenalLaw § 120.05 [2]). Contrary to the defendant's arguments, the evidence waslegally sufficient to prove that the victim sustained "physical injury" within the meaningof Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]; People v Martinez, 116 AD3d983, 984 [2014]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the crime of assault in the seconddegree, including the "physical injury" element, was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]). The complainant was stabbed four times,visibly bleeding, and noted his pain level was "moderate." Furthermore, the complainantreceived medical treatment that included X rays, stitches, and pain medication. At trial,more than a year after the incident, the complainant testified that his arm feels "tingly"and has "nerve damage."
The defendant's contention that portions of the expert medical testimony wereimproperly admitted is without merit. The defendant was charged with, inter alia,attempted assault in the first degree, which requires proof that the defendant intended toinflict serious physical injury (see Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) andcame dangerously near to doing so (see Penal Law § 110.00;People v Kassebaum, 95 NY2d 611, 618 [2001]). Here, the expert medicaltestimony regarding the proximity of vital bodily areas to the complainant's actualinjuries and the potential medical consequences had those areas been damaged wasrelevant and probative to establish how dangerously close the defendant came toinflicting serious physical injury (see People v Calas, 134 AD3d 1043, 1045 [2015]), and didnot unduly prejudice the defendant or mislead the jury (see People v Harris, 117 AD3d847, 854 [2014], affd 26 NY3d 1 [2015]). The expert medical testimonywas, therefore, properly admitted at trial.
[*2] The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balkin, J.P., Miller,Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.