Opinion
No. 13–353.
09-25-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Valrita GLUCKJHAGROO, Defendant–Appellant.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of conviction (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), rendered December 5, 2012, affirmed.
Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction of disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20) is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 2007 ). The trial court, as factfinder, was warranted in concluding that defendant's conduct—using abusive and obscene language at the arresting officer in the Penn Station LIRR waiting area-recklessly created a risk of a “potential or immediate public problem” (People v. Weaver, 16 NY3d 123, 128 2011, quoting People v. Munafo, 50 N.Y.2d 326, 331 1980 ).
Defendant failed to preserve her present contention that the trial court acted as a prosecutor and deprived her of her constitutional right to a fair trial (see People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740 2001 ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments, including her challenge to the facial sufficiency of the underlying accusatory instrument.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.