People v. Roman
Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the court committed reversible error when it changed its Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) just before opening statements. Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the change in the ruling, and thus reversal is not required (cf., People v Powe, 146 AD2d 718, 719, lv denied 73 NY2d 1020; see also, People v Bush, 187 AD2d 951, 952, lv denied 81 NY2d 882; People v Atkinson, 171 AD2d 430, lv denied 78 NY2d 961). We further reject defendant’s contention that the proof of physical injury is legally insufficient. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we conclude that the jury reasonably could have inferred that the victim suffered substantial pain as a result of a gunshot wound to his
Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal are unpreserved and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present— Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.