PETTY SLAPS DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, ROBBERY SECOND REDUCED TO ROBBERY THIRD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Dept, reducing the robbery second conviction to robbery third, determined the proof of substantial pain was insufficient:

… [W]e agree with the defendant that the evidence was insufficient to establish “substantial pain” beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain his conviction of robbery in the second degree Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]). The People’s evidence, presented through photographs and police testimony, was insufficient to establish that plaintiff suffered more than “petty slaps” and, therefore, failed to establish “substantial pain” beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Ramos, 2018 NY Slip Op 04097, First Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ROBBERY, PETTY SLAPS DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, ROBBERY SECOND REDUCED TO ROBBERY THIRD (FIRST DEPT))/ROBBERY (SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, PETTY SLAPS DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, ROBBERY SECOND REDUCED TO ROBBERY THIRD (FIRST DEPT))/SUBSTANTIAL PAIN  (ROBBERY, PETTY SLAPS DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, ROBBERY SECOND REDUCED TO ROBBERY THIRD (FIRST DEPT))