Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At the reconstruction hearing the parties stipulated that the defendant was in fact present at the Sandoval hearing. Accordingly, the defendant's previous contentions to the contrary are unavailing.
Equally without merit are the defendant's arguments that the People adduced legally insufficient evidence that the complainant sustained physical injury. The complainant testified that during the course of the robbery the defendant and his accomplices repeatedly punched and kicked him, causing him to sustain cuts, bruises, and swelling. The complainant received medical treatment and he further testified that he suffered "a lot" of pain for several weeks. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Bogan, 70 N.Y.2d 860; People v Thomas, 195 A.D.2d 581; People v Powell, 181 A.D.2d 924). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.