Opinion
December 19, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's request for a charge as to the affirmative defense of duress (Penal Law § 40.00) was properly rejected, for, as the trial court observed in so ruling, the defendant's testimony that he sold heroin to the undercover officer because he had been "threatened" did not form a sufficient factual predicate for such an instruction (see, People v Amato, 99 A.D.2d 495; People v Tayeh, 96 A.D.2d 1045; People v Irby, 61 A.D.2d 386, mod on other grounds 47 N.Y.2d 894). Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.