Opinion
November 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
At trial, the defendant presented an agency defense to the charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance. He now contends that the People failed to disprove this defense beyond a reasonable doubt. As the evidence with respect to this defense presented an issue of credibility for the jury, its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86; see also, People v Scott, 134 A.D.2d 379). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence of his dominion and control over the automobile where marihuana and drug paraphernalia were found was sufficient to establish his constructive possession of those items (see, People v Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561, 573; Penal Law § 10.00). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.