People v Corbin

People v Corbin 2011 NY Slip Op 08973 Decided on December 13, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 13, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Acosta, Richter, JJ.
6306 3876/07

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Thor Corbin, Defendant-Appellant.




Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New
York (Eunice C. Lee of counsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Nancy D. Killian
of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Gross, J.), rendered March 23, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The People established that the victim had a sufficient familiarity with defendant to make a confirmatory identification (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]). A few months before the crime the victim had a conversation with defendant about mating their dogs, after which the victim saw defendant many times in the neighborhood while defendant was driving his car. The victim also had a fight with defendant shortly before the shooting, and was able to provide the investigating detective with defendant's first name.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). We reject defendant's challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting the element of serious physical injury. Seventeen months after the shooting, the victim, a high school student, led a less active life than before the crime because he still suffered pain from his wound. This established a protracted impairment of health (see Penal Law § 10.00[10]; People v Graham, 297 AD2d 579, 580 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 535 [2002]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 13, 2011

CLERK