IN RE: SHAKIEA B. (2008)

 Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating her to be a juvenile delinquent based upon findings that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of, inter alia, assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[2] ) and reckless endangerment in the second degree (§ 120.20).   The adjudication arises from an incident in which respondent struck the victim in the head with a two-foot-long stick.   We reject the contention of respondent that she is entitled to a new trial based on alleged Rosario and Brady violations.   The presentment agency was not required to turn over to respondent the statement of her sister to the police as Rosario material because respondent's sister was not called as a witness by the presentment agency (see Family Ct. Act § 331.4[1][a];  People v. Restivo, 209 A.D.2d 448, 619 N.Y.S.2d 584, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1024, 651 N.Y.S.2d 23, 673 N.E.2d 1250;  People v. Gardner, 162 A.D.2d 466, 556 N.Y.S.2d 163).   Furthermore, there was no Brady violation based on the presentment agency's failure to turn over that statement inasmuch as respondent called her sister as a witness and was “fully able to ‘take advantage of any exculpatory testimony that [she] might furnish’ ” (Gardner, 162 A.D.2d at 466, 556 N.Y.S.2d 163;  see People v. Medina, 208 A.D.2d 974, 975, 617 N.Y.S.2d 230, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1035, 623 N.Y.S.2d 191, 647 N.E.2d 463).

 Respondent further contends that she was denied a fair trial when Family Court refused to grant her request for an adjournment to enable her to present the testimony of a witness.   We reject that contention.   It is well settled that the decision whether to grant or deny a request for an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the court (see Matter of Carolina P., 232 A.D.2d 564, 565, 648 N.Y.S.2d 980;  Matter of John W., 227 A.D.2d 981, 643 N.Y.S.2d 834;  see generally Matter of Eric W., 68 N.Y.2d 633, 636, 505 N.Y.S.2d 60, 496 N.E.2d 219), and here, there was no abuse or improvident exercise of discretion.   The witness had not been subpoenaed (cf. John W., 227 A.D.2d 981, 643 N.Y.S.2d 834), and her anticipated testimony was not material to the issue of respondent's guilt inasmuch as respondent admitted that she struck the victim in the head with a stick (see generally Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283-284, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675, 471 N.E.2d 447).

 Contrary to the further contention of respondent, the evidence supports the court's determinations that she was not justified in striking the victim (see Penal Law § 35.15[1][b] ) and that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained a physical injury (see People v. Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630, 636, 612 N.Y.S.2d 350, 634 N.E.2d 951;  People v. Hines, 9 A.D.3d 507, 511, 780 N.Y.S.2d 419, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 707, 785 N.Y.S.2d 34, 818 N.E.2d 676;  see also People v. Delgado, 167 A.D.2d 181, 561 N.Y.S.2d 573, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 905, 569 N.Y.S.2d 937, 572 N.E.2d 620).   We further conclude that, under the circumstances in which it was used, the stick constituted a dangerous instrument capable of causing serious physical injury or death (see § 10.00[13];  see also People v. Moyler, 256 A.D.2d 1108, 685 N.Y.S.2d 159, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 975, 695 N.Y.S.2d 61, 716 N.E.2d 1106;  People v. Chambers, 165 A.D.2d 738, 564 N.Y.S.2d 262, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 876, 568 N.Y.S.2d 919, 571 N.E.2d 89;  People v. Ludwig, 155 A.D.2d 558, 559-560, 547 N.Y.S.2d 414, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 814, 552 N.Y.S.2d 565, 551 N.E.2d 1243).

 Finally, we reject the contention of respondent that the determination is repugnant.   Although it is well established that a person “who acts with the conscious objective of bringing about a particular result cannot simultaneously act with conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the very result will occur” (People v. Trappier, 87 N.Y.2d 55, 58, 637 N.Y.S.2d 352, 660 N.E.2d 1131;  see e.g. People v. Dukes, 30 A.D.3d 682, 686, 817 N.Y.S.2d 683, revd. on other grounds 8 N.Y.3d 952, 840 N.Y.S.2d 545, 872 N.E.2d 231;  People v. Slater, 270 A.D.2d 925, 705 N.Y.S.2d 777, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 858, 714 N.Y.S.2d 9, 736 N.E.2d 870;  see generally People v. Gallagher, 69 N.Y.2d 525, 529, 516 N.Y.S.2d 174, 508 N.E.2d 909), that principle does not apply where, as here, the alleged result of the two crimes charged is not the same.   Respondent was charged with assault in the second degree on the theory that she intended to cause physical injury and did so by means of a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 120. 05[2] ), and she was charged with reckless endangerment in the second degree on the theory that she recklessly engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of serious physical injury (see § 120.20).   Thus, it was possible for the court to find that respondent “intend[ed] one result ․ while recklessly creating a [substantial] risk that a different, more serious result ․ would ensue from [her] actions” (Trappier, 87 N.Y.2d at 59, 637 N.Y.S.2d 352, 660 N.E.2d 1131;  see e.g. People v. Carter, 21 A.D.3d 1295, 1296, 801 N.Y.S.2d 464, affd. 7 N.Y.3d 875, 826 N.Y.S.2d 588, 860 N.E.2d 50;  People v. Williams, 45 A.D.3d 1466, 1467, 845 N.Y.S.2d 674, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 818, 857 N.Y.S.2d 51, 886 N.E.2d 816;  People v. Belcher, 289 A.D.2d 1039, 735 N.Y.S.2d 299, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 751, 742 N.Y.S.2d 611, 769 N.E.2d 357).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: