Court Opinion

ID: 9879385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 18:11:58.048956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:51.985746
License: Public Domain

Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., dissents in part in a memorandum as follows: In my view, the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish the element of “serious physical injury,” defined as “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” (Penal Law § 10.00 [10]), and the convictions for assault in the first degree under Penal Law §§ 120.10 (1) and (3) should be reversed. The charges stem from an incident on the evening of October 9, 2010, when, during a street brawl, defendant shot a gun multiple times toward a group of people, and struck 15-year-old bystander Lloyd B. in the leg. Lloyd testified that after being shot, he returned to his apartment building. He initially thought he had been struck with a BB gun because “the bullet hole was so little.” Later on that day, he went to the hospital, where police officers informed him that he had been shot with a gun. He reiterated that he hadn’t realized, since the “[bullet] hole [wa]s so little,” explaining that it “didn’t even look like a bullet hole. I didn’t know what it was.” Lloyd received a tetanus shot and antibiotics at the hospital, but no pain medication. He initially rated his pain a 7 out of 10; two hours later, he rated his pain 0 out of 10. He did not undergo surgery. X rays showed no fractures or neurovascu-lar damage. He denied any numbness, tingling or motor deficit, indicators that he had not suffered any acute damage. Lloyd has retained bullet fragments within the left thigh; there was no evidence that the fragments caused any damage or endangered his life in any way. The People’s expert testified that the fragments were “maybe” in the vicinity of the femoral artery. She explained that in trauma situations it was protocol to leave such fragments in an extremity so as not to cause possible further damage. The People’s expert was provided with no records beyond 2010, and thus was unable to opine as to whether Lloyd had a permanent disability. Lloyd used crutches intermittently for a period of two months following the shooting. He has since resumed an active lifestyle. Although he once played on the football team, he now plays on a recreational basis. He testified that four years after the incident, he still had what he characterized as “little problems,” such as soreness at night and “[w]hen it rains.” He maintained at trial that he could feel the bullet fragments in his leg. Lloyd was never in serious apprehension of death within the meaning of the statute, nor does the prosecution contend as much. Rather, the prosecution maintains that he suffered “serious and . . . protracted impairment of health” because he used crutches for two months, has intermittent pain, and has bullet fragments lodged near his femoral artery. These are not bases for finding that Lloyd suffered “serious physical injury” as contemplated in the statute. The temporary use of crutches does not indicate “serious physical injury” (see People v Ham, 67 AD3d 1038, 1040 [3d Dept 2009] [conclusory assertion of use of crutches, pain medication, and physical therapy by gunshot victim did not support finding of “serious physical injury”]). Slight pain upon exertion or while running does not constitute “serious physical injury” (see People v Daniels, 97 AD3d 845, 847 [3d Dept 2012] [sore knee once in a while insufficient, where victim was able to resume playing soccer], lv denied 20 NY3d 931 [2012]), nor do complaints of intermittent pain associated with the weather (see People v Castillo, 199 AD2d 276 [2d Dept 1993]). Lloyd does not experience “persistent pain so severe as to cause protracted impairment of health” (People v Romero, 147 AD3d 1490, 1491-1492 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1036 [2017]). There is no proof of injury connected to the bullet fragments, nor is there proof that Lloyd’s life was endangered by the presence of the fragments (compare People v Horton, 9 AD3d 503, 505 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 707 [2004] [no “serious physical injury” where surgeon declined to remove bullet fragments lodged near the spinal cord], with People v Walker, 279 AD2d 696, 697-698 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 869 [2001] [finding “serious physical injury” where a bullet fragment near the victim’s spine had in fact caused paralysis and life-threatening injury and necessitated long-term rehabilitation]). Notably, the People’s expert was unable to opine as to whether Lloyd had suffered permanent deficits associated with the injury. The fact that Lloyd suffered a gunshot wound does not ipso facto establish that he suffered a “serious physical injury” (see e.g. People v Ekwegbalu, 131 AD3d 982, 984 [2d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1108 [2016]). Because I dissent on the above basis, I express no opinion concerning the proper remedy for the People’s failure to establish the “serious physical injury” element of assault,* or any of the other arguments advanced by defendant on appeal.   Proper remedies might include reducing the conviction to a lesser included offense (see Romero, 147 AD3d at 1491; People v Snipes, 112 AD2d 810 [1st Dept 1985]).