You are here: / / THE PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS OR PROTRACTED DISFIGUREMENT”...
,

THE PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS OR PROTRACTED DISFIGUREMENT” IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s assault first conviction and reducing it to attempted assault first, determined the People did not prove the scar on the victim’s cheek met the definition of “serious and protracted disfigurement.” The People introduced two photos of the scar and the doctor who treated the injury testified. The victim did not testify:

Defendant’s convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to prove that the victim suffered serious and permanent disfigurement, which was the basis of both counts (see Penal Law §§ 120.10[1], [2]). The People relied solely on two photos of the victim depicting a scar on his cheek, and the scar was briefly described by the doctor who treated the victim on the day of the slashing. Despite the scar’s prominent location, neither the photos nor the doctor’s testimony warrant an inference that the scar rendered the victim’s appearance “distressing or objectionable” to a reasonable observer … . The victim did not testify, so the jury had no opportunity to observe the actual scar and evaluate whether it was seriously disfiguring, nor was any other evidence adduced regarding the scar’s effects on the victim’s appearance, health, and life … . People v McBride, 2022 NY Slip Op 07034, First Dept 12-13-22

Practice Point: Here defendant was charged with assault first for causing “serious and protracted disfigurement” to the victim. Although two photos of the scar were introduced in evidence and the treating doctor testified, the victim did not testify. It appears that the jury’s inability to see the victim at the time of trial rendered the proof legally insufficient.

 

You might also like
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES ARE REVIEWED UNDER “NOTICE PLEADING” STANDARDS WHERE ONLY FAIR NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND ITS GROUNDS ARE REQUIRED; HERE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THAT A SUPERVISOR STATED SHE RECEIVED HIGH EVALUATIONS BECAUSE SHE ENGAGED IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HER SUPERIORS WAS SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE DISMISSAL (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT).
EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS WARRANTING STRIKING ITS ANSWER (FIRST DEPT).
SUPPRESSION OF JUVENILE’S PROVIDING FALSE NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH TO POLICE OFFICER PROPERLY DENIED; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION BASED UPON THE FALSE PEDIGREE INFORMATION PROPER.
THE NATIONAL VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM (PART 2 OF THE NATIONAL CHILDHOOD VACCINE INJURY ACT OF 1986), WHICH LIMITS THE LIABILITY OF A PHYSICIAN WHO ADMINISTERS A VACCINE TO $1000, DOES NOT APPLY TO PHYSICIANS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY TREAT A VACCINATED PERSON FOR A VACCINE-RELATED CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE; PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE THEORY WAS NOT ASSERTED IN THE ANSWERS; THE MOTION TO DIMSISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (FIRST DEPT).
SCAFFOLD TIPPED PINNING PLAINTIFF’S HAND AGAINST A WALL; SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS BEING THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE FELONY WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY OFFENDER... THE HOIST WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OPERATING WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WITHIN THE MEANING...