Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff contends that she was deprived of her right to a fair trial as a result of judicial bias, as purportedly evidenced by, inter alia, repeated threats from the trial court to hold her attorney in contempt. The record demonstrates that the plaintiffs attorney interrupted certain remarks of the trial court and, ignoring the court's admonition to desist, persisted in this type of rude and offensive conduct. Since such conduct would otherwise constitute contempt ( see Judiciary Law § 750 [A]; Matter of Waldman v Churchill, 262 NY 247), the trial court's conduct in reprimanding the plaintiffs attorney and threatening him with contempt for his behavior during trial, did not demonstrate bias against counsel that would warrant reversal in this action ( see e.g. Lorenzo v Mass, Inc., 31 AD3d 616).
The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before us.