People v Gluckjhagroo (Valrita)

[*1] People v Gluckjhagroo (Valrita) 2015 NY Slip Op 51371(U) Decided on September 25, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 25, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
13-353

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Valrita Gluckjhagroo, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), rendered December 5, 2012, after a nonjury trial, convicting her of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

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 NY2d 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 NY2d 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 I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 25, 2015