Opinion
2019–01430 Ind. No. 396/18
05-12-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mark KING, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP [Sara A. Arrow ], of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Jill A. Gross–Marks of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP [Sara A. Arrow ], of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Jill A. Gross–Marks of counsel), for respondent.
ROBERT J. MILLER, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard Buchter, J.), rendered January 29, 2019, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish that the victim sustained not only "physical injury" ( Penal Law § 10.00[9] ), but also that the defendant caused the physical injury by means of a "dangerous instrument" by the manner in which he used his sneakers to stomp on and kick the victim's head ( Penal Law § 120.05[2] ; see People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113, 117, 440 N.Y.S.2d 607, 423 N.E.2d 30 ; People v. Hunt, 135 A.D.3d 624, 23 N.Y.S.3d 236 ; People v. Lev, 33 A.D.3d 362, 822 N.Y.S.2d 73 ; People v. Hansen, 203 A.D.2d 588, 610 N.Y.S.2d 617 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
MILLER, J.P., LASALLE, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.