By: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.15-184. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. TRAVIS COKER, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Erika M. Edwards, J.), rendered November 5, 2014, affirmed.Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The evidence presented at trial by the People, which included the arresting officer’s testimony as well as the object itself, was sufficient to support the factfinder’s conclusion that said object, which was found on defendant’s person, attached to his belt buckle, constituted metal knuckles, a per se weapon (see Penal Law §265.01[1]), and not a novelty item that was “not capable of being worn and used as [a] weapon[]” (People v. Aragon, 28 NY3d 125, 129 [2016]). Neither proof of criminal intent nor knowledge of the illegality of the weapon is necessary for the People to establish guilt (see People v. Parrilla, 27 NY3d 400, 404 [2016]).The court properly declined to give an adverse inference charge as to the belt to which the metal knuckles had been attached, since there is no indication in the record that the belt was seized by the police (see People v. Rivera, 126 AD3d 818, 819 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1149 [2016]; People v. Dockery, 107 AD3d 913, 914 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 955 [2013]; People v. Plummer, 95 AD3d 647 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 976 [2012]). In any event, even assuming that defendant was entitled to an adverse inference charge, the absence of such a charge was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.November 29, 2018
18-120. FOREST DRUGS A/A/O UDDIN KAMAR, plf-res, v. GLOBAL LIBERTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, def-app — Order (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered December 18, 2017, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted in its entirety, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it timely denied plaintiff’s first-party no-fault claims based on an affirmed independent examination report [IME] of its examining orthopedist, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for his stated conclusion that the assignor’s injuries were resolved and that there was no need for further treatment (see Mingmen Acupuncture Servs., PC v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., 61 Misc 3d 128[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51358[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018]; Rummel G. Mendoza, D.C., P.C. v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 156[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50900[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]).In opposition, the medical affirmation submitted by plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue since it was not based on an examination of the assignor, nor did it meaningfully rebut the findings of defendant’s examining physician (see Arnica Acupuncture PC v. Interboard Ins. Co., 137 AD3d 421 [2016]; Rummel G. Mendoza, D.C., P.C. v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 156[A]). Nor did the assignor’s subjective complaints of pain overcome the objective medical tests detailed in the IME report (see Arnica Acupuncture PC v. Interboard Ins. Co., 137 AD3d 421).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.November 29, 2018
