People v. Martin

Feb 19, 2008
Reporters:
,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s contentions that the evidence presented was legally insufficient to disprove the defense of justification and establish that one of the victims suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]; People v Alston, 42 AD3d 468 [2007]; People v Carranza, 306 AD2d 351, 352 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 729 [2004]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant‘s justification defense and establish that the victim in question suffered a physical injury.

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Wolf, 16 AD3d 1167 [2005]; People v Holmes, 9 AD3d 689 [2004]; People v Baa, 189 AD2d 771 [1993]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.