Opinion
February 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Robbery in the second degree, as defined by Penal Law § 160.10 (2) (a), requires proof of physical injury to the victim, and physical injury, as defined by Penal Law § 10.00 (9), requires proof of an impairment of physical condition or substantial pain. The victim, who was 81 years old at the time of the crime, testified that the defendant grabbed him by his collar, threw him to the ground, pinned his arm against the pavement and rubbed his wrist back and forth on the concrete causing the victim great pain and breaking the links in his watchband. The defendant then tore the complainant's lining out of the jacket and removed an envelope and a billfold. For approximately two weeks following this attack, the elderly complainant's back and wrist were very painful and he suffered a lot of discomfort. Given the complainant's age and condition, the vicious and violent nature of the attack, and his testimony regarding his injuries, we find that whether the complainant suffered substantial pain was properly a matter for the trier of fact to determine (see, People v. Rojas, 61 N.Y.2d 726; Matter of Philip A., 49 N.Y.2d 198; People v. Chesebro, 94 A.D.2d 897).
We agree with the hearing court's determination that the showup was not unnecessarily suggestive (see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Lewis, 123 A.D.2d 716), and we note that, in any event, an independent source existed for the complainant's in-court identification testimony. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.