PEOPLE v. MARSH

To the extent that the challenged rebuttal testimony was relevant to the ability of the defense witness to perceive and remember events, such evidence was not collateral and the court properly exercised its discretion to receive it (see, People v. Ortiz, 40 A.D.2d 857, 858). In any event, even were we to find that any of the rebuttal testimony was collateral and thus improperly received, we would find the error to be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.

The evidence of physical injury under the robbery count was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Evidence that the complainant's lip was swollen and "busted", that he attempted to stop the bleeding by applying a tissue, that he applied ice on the night of the injury, and that his lip hurt for three or four days when he ate, provided ample proof of physical injury (see, People v. Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630, 636; Matter of O'Shanna T., 238 A.D.2d 287).

Motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and other related relief denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.