| People v Carrington |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 08010 [155 AD3d 888] |
| November 15, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Steve Carrington, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Rebecca J. Gannon of counsel) for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, William H. Branigan, Aurora Alvarez-Calderon, and John McGoldrick of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.),rendered December 7, 2015, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt ofassault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt because the People failed to prove theidentity of the object that he threw at the victim. However, the particular identity of thedangerous instrument is not an element of assault in the second degree (see Penal Law§ 120.05 [2]; People vKaid, 43 AD3d 1077, 1082-1083 [2007]). Regardless of which specific object thedefendant threw, it constituted a dangerous instrument under the circumstances in which it wasused because, upon striking the victim, the object dislodged two of her teeth and damaged her lipso as to require stitches (see Penal Law § 10.00 [13]).
The defendant also contends that the evidence was legally insufficient because the Peoplefailed to prove that he intended to cause injury. This contention is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 21 [1995]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that there was legally sufficient evidence to inferthe defendant's intent from his conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People vSteinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 682 [1992]).
Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict ofguilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]). Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ., concur.