SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

150 

KA 12-00343 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TYRELL FORD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KRISTIN M. PREVE OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. SMALL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L.

D’Amico, J.), rendered January 31, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of assault in the second degree and

harassment in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

following a nonjury trial of assault in the second degree (Penal Law §

120.05 [1]) and harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26 [1]). With

respect to the assault conviction, defendant contends that the

evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he intended to

cause serious physical injury to one of the victims. We reject that

contention. “ ‘A defendant may be presumed to intend the natural and

probable consequences of his [or her] actions . . . , and [i]ntent may

be inferred from the totality of conduct of the accused’ ” (People v

Moreland, 103 AD3d 1275, 1276, lv denied 21 NY3d 945; see People v

Meacham, 84 AD3d 1713, 1714, lv denied 17 NY3d 808). Here, several

witnesses testified that defendant attacked the victim from behind and

punched him in the face at least twice with a closed fist. During the

altercation, defendant, who was approximately six feet five inches

tall, weighed about 300 or 320 pounds, and was considerably larger

than the victim, placed the victim in a headlock, and then struck the

victim in the face at least once while the victim was thus

immobilized. We conclude that one natural and probable consequence of

striking someone under such circumstances is that the person will

sustain a serious physical injury (see Meacham, 84 AD3d at 1714). 

Defendant also challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence on the

issue whether the victim sustained a serious physical injury within

the meaning of Penal Law §§ 120.05 (1) and 10.00 (10). The People

presented evidence establishing that the victim sustained two
-2- 150 

KA 12-00343 

fractures to his jaw, which required surgery and the permanent

placement of a titanium plate in his chin. The victim’s jaw was wired

shut for four weeks, and the victim experienced numbness in his chin

that continued until the time of trial. Consequently, we conclude

that the evidence of serious physical injury is legally sufficient to

support the conviction of assault (see People v Santiago, 111 AD3d

1383, 1384-1385; People v Johnson, 50 AD3d 1537, 1537-1538, lv denied

10 NY3d 935; see also Matter of Tirell R., 33 AD3d 804, 805). 

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime and

the violation in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d

342, 349), we reject defendant’s further contention that the court

failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded when it

determined that he intended to cause serious physical injury (see

generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), and when it rejected

his justification defense (see People v Moreno, 31 AD3d 1214, 1214, lv

denied 7 NY3d 869). “It is well settled that credibility

determinations by the court . . . are entitled to great deference

. . . , and minor inconsistencies in the testimony of certain

prosecution witnesses do not render their testimony incredible as a

matter of law” (People v Howard, 101 AD3d 1749, 1750, lv denied 21

NY3d 944 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Entered: February 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court