Opinion
May 7, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.).
Defendant's involvement as an accomplice and not merely as a passive bystander or buyer in this drug transaction was proven by legally sufficient evidence that defendant responded to the undercover officer's request for cocaine by telling her to follow him so that he could "hook [her] up"; that defendant then led the officer to a codefendant, who responded to their requests for "dimes" by telling them to wait by a telephone booth; that the codefendant then went to speak with another codefendant, who approached the officer while defendant stood by her and handed her two vials in return for $20; and that defendant then followed the officer and asked her for a "little" but the detective refused. Such conduct could be reasonably viewed as demonstrating an interest in promoting the transaction even though defendant never handled the purchase money or the drugs ( People v McDermott, 192 A.D.2d 415, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1076), and the verdict was not otherwise against the weight of the evidence. Defendant waived any agency defense, and the court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion ( see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.