Opinion
April 6, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support the theory that he participated in the drug sale "only because he wished to serve as an agent for the buyer, a complete stranger" ( People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780, 782-783). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury as to the defense of agency ( see, People v. Herring, supra).
The defendant was not prejudiced by the prosecution's delay in disclosing certain Rosario material since the defendant had the opportunity to review the challenged material and cross-examine the witness after receiving it ( see, People v. Forest, 78 N.Y.2d 886, 887-888; People v. Boswell, 193 A.D.2d 690; People v. Blagrove, 183 A.D.2d 837).
The defendant's challenges to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Rivera, 73 N.Y.2d 941, 942, citing People v. Ford, 69 N.Y.2d 775, 776) or without merit.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.