Opinion
February 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony adduced at trial was legally sufficient to demonstrate "physical injury" pursuant to Penal Law § 10.00 (9). The complainant testified that the defendant bit him on the forearm during the commission of the robbery. He further testified that the bite wound was red all over, throbbed, produced a large bump, and required medical treatment. According to the complainant, he was in terrible pain for a substantial period of time, he could not use his arm, he could not return to work for some time, and the bump did not go away for at least three weeks. This testimony was sufficient to warrant the submission of the issue of physical injury to the jury (see, People v Bogan, 70 N.Y.2d 860; People v Harper, 145 A.D.2d 933; People v Starling, 101 A.D.2d 704; People v Coward, 100 A.D.2d 628).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.