Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support her conviction of robbery in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 160.10 (1) is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Carr-El, 287 AD2d 731, 732, affd 99 NY2d 546; People v Washington, 283 AD2d 661, 661-662). Furthermore, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).