PRESENT:: IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ.
from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First
District (Valerie Alexander, J.), rendered October 1, 2012.
The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of
assault in the third degree.
that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
as is relevant to this appeal, defendant was charged with
assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 ).
The evidence adduced at a jury trial indicated that defendant
and the complainant, who had been friends for several years,
had a falling out. On June 5, 2011, they traded insults on
the social media website Facebook. On that date, the
complainant uploaded from the internet and
"reposted" to her social media Twitter account a
video of defendant engaging in sexual activity with
defendant's boyfriend. The complainant deleted the video
about one hour later. On June 6, 2011, the complainant was
working as a home health aide at the home of an elderly
person in Seaford, Nassau County. Defendant, her sister, and
several other people arrived at the home. When the
complainant exited the home at the end of her shift,
defendant attacked her, hitting her in the face several
times. As a result, the complainant's nose bled for
approximately 30 minutes, and she experienced pain and
soreness for two or three days. She also sustained scratches
and bruises to her face. The complainant did not go to a
hospital. Instead, she testified that she went to a doctor,
who told her to take over-the-counter ibuprofen for the pain.
Included in the evidence was a one minute and forty-five
second video of defendant's attack against the
complainant. The complainant testified on direct examination
that she had fallen to the ground when defendant struck her.
During cross-examination, the complainant testified that she
had not fallen to the ground when defendant struck her.
the trial, the jury found defendant guilty of assault in the
Law § 120.00 (1) provides that a "person is guilty
of assault in the third degree when... [w]ith intent to cause
physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to
such person or to a third person." Penal Law §
10.00 (9) defines "physical injury" as
"impairment of physical condition or substantial
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution
(see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621 ), we
find that it was legally sufficient to establish
defendant's guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of assault
in the third degree. "A verdict is legally sufficient if
there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible
inferences that could lead a rational person to conclude that
every element of the charged crime has been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. The proof must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the prosecution and the People are entitled to
all reasonable evidentiary inferences" (People v
Delamota, 18 N.Y.3d 107, 113  [internal citations
omitted]). A court "could theoretically uphold a
conviction that was premised on inherently contradictory
testimony by a single witness because the jury could have
accepted the testimony that supported the People and rejected
that which did not" (id.).
evidence was sufficient to establish defendant's intent
to cause physical injury. At about the time the
complainant's shift ended, defendant arrived at the
complainant's place of work accompanied by several other
persons. Defendant's sister recorded the altercation, and
the video was posted on the internet. The video shows that
defendant struck the complainant several times.
Defendant's intent to assault the complainant can be
inferred from her conduct and the surrounding circumstances
(see Matter of Eugene D., 126 A.D.3d 529');">126 A.D.3d 529 ;
Matter of Eric C., 281 A.D.2d 543, 544 ;
see also People v Kruppenbacher, 81 A.D.3d 1169,
a subjective matter, and deciding whether the
"substantial pain" threshold has been met is
generally for the trier of fact. The Court of Appeals has
held that while "slight or trivial pain" is
insufficient, the "[p]ain need not... be severe or
intense to be substantial" (People v Chiddick,
8 N.Y.3d 445, 447 ). "Each case ultimately turns
upon the facts unique thereto, with a variety of relevant
factors, including, among others, the injury viewed
objectively, the victim's subjective description of the
injury and her pain, and whether the victim sought medical
treatment" (People v Rivera, 42 A.D.3d 587, 588
case, defendant threw eight to ten punches at the complainant
and struck her several times. The complainant's nose bled
continuously for approximately 30 minutes. The altercation
lasted nearly two minutes. Although the complainant did not
seek treatment at a hospital, but went to an unidentified
private doctor, there is no requirement that a victim seek
hospital or medical treatment to establish physical injury
(see People v Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630, 636 ).
Here, the complainant's nose "hurt a lot to the
touch, " and felt as if it was broken, although it was
not. She also had scratches and bruises on her face. The
other parts of her face felt swollen and her face "did
not look presentable." The pain and soreness to her nose
went away two or three days after the altercation. The
scratches and bruises took about a week to go away. The
complainant's boyfriend testified that the
complainant's shirt was ripped and her shirt and pants
had blood on it. Based on the facts and circumstances of this
case, defendant's guilt of assault in the third degree
was supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People
v Rose, 120 A.D.3d 593, 594 ; People v
Valencia, 50 A.D.3d 1163, 1164 ). The jury was
free to reject the complainant's testimony on
cross-examination that she had not fallen to the ground when
defendant struck her.
claims that the District Court erred by not permitting
cross-examination of the complainant with respect to her
sworn statement to the police. A trial court "has broad
discretion to limit cross-examination when questions are
repetitive, irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern
collateral issues, or threaten to mislead the jury"
(People v Rivera, 98 A.D.3d 529, 529 ; see
Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 ;
People v Corby, 6 N.Y.3d 231, 234-235 ;
People v Arroyo, 131 A.D.3d 1257, 1258 ;
People v Pena, 113 A.D.3d 701, 702 ;
People v Stevens, 45 A.D.3d 610, 611 ).
However, a court's discretion in making such rulings
"is circumscribed by the rules of evidence and the
defendant's constitutional right to present a
defense" (People v Carroll, 95 N.Y.2d 375, 385
; see People v Diaz, 85 A.D.3d 1047, 1049-1050
). Here, counsel had already elicited from the
complainant that she had not fallen to the ground as a result
of defendant striking her. Thus, the cross-examination
regarding her statement to the police would have been
cumulative to the testimony counsel had elicited.
also claims that she should have been permitted to ask the
complainant how she uploaded and took down the video of
defendant engaging in sexual activity with defendant's
boyfriend to and from the complainant's Twitter account.
However, the complainant had previously testified that she
had uploaded the video from the internet and thereafter
deleted it. Even if she was aware of the technical procedures
of uploading and removing the video, such testimony would
have been collateral and irrelevant.
the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and ...