Opinion
June 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).
Defendant, standing on a street corner, directed the undercover officer to follow him for a purchase of cocaine. After a walk of 2 or 3 blocks, the officer was directed to wait while defendant got a glassine of cocaine from co-defendant. Defendant then handed the glassine to the officer in exchange for the buy money. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury's findings of credibility, under the standards set forth in People v. Bleakley ( 69 N.Y.2d 490, 494-495), defendant's guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. The jury was free to reject defendant's testimony offered in support of his agency defense. The People disproved that defense beyond a reasonable doubt under the standards set forth in People v. Roche ( 45 N.Y.2d 78, cert denied 439 U.S. 958), People v. Argibay ( 45 N.Y.2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v. New York, 439 U.S. 930) and People v. Lam Lek Chong ( 45 N.Y.2d 64, cert denied 439 U.S. 935). We find no error in the court's ruling allowing introduction of evidence that defendant had been convicted of a prior drug sale. It is well settled that such evidence is admissible to rebut a claimed agency defense, and the court here furnished proper limiting instructions (People v. Monahan, 114 A.D.2d 380).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved, or without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.