Opinion
January 13, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The People met their burden of proving defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt including disproving defendant's "agency" defense. Generally, an agency defense raises an issue of fact for the jury to determine whether defendant acted solely on behalf of the buyer without any personal motive in promoting the sale (see, e.g., People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196), defendant's conduct evinced sufficient indicia of "[s]alesman-like behavior" (People v Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 85) for the jury to determine that he was not acting on behalf of the undercover police buyer alone and had a personal interest in promoting the transaction (see, e.g., People v Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, 53-54).
We have examined the issues raised by defendant pro se and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.