Opinion
May 30, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that the complainant suffered "physical injury" so as to support a conviction of burglary in the first degree (see, Penal Law § 140.30). Penal Law § 10.00 (9) defines physical injury as "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain". The injuries described by the complainant, including bruises on his hands lasting for over a month, lasting pain in the jaw causing difficulty with eating, and other assorted cuts and bruises, were sufficient to meet the statutory threshold (see, People v Greene, 70 N.Y.2d 860; People v Slaughter, 138 A.D.2d 835; People v Talibon, 138 A.D.2d 426; People v Upshaw, 138 A.D.2d 761; People v Miles, 136 A.D.2d 958). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We also find that the defendant has failed to demonstrate a deprivation of his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel. Counsel's representation of the defendant was within the broad range of reasonably competent assistance and there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial was affected by the alleged shortcomings of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Diaz, 131 A.D.2d 775).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.