Opinion
October 28, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.).
Defendant was at the center of independent State and Federal investigations into a substantial drug and weapons organization. The search of defendant's apartment was pursuant to a validly executed search warrant. Since the more onerous requirements of a search warrant had been satisfied, there was no constitutional infirmity in the failure to also secure a warrant of arrest (see, Jones v. City County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1209). Nor did the court err in examining the affidavits in support of the warrant application ex parte and in camera, and in denying to defendant disclosure of the identities of informants (People v Castillo, 80 N.Y.2d 578, cert denied ___ US ___, 113 S Ct 1854). Defendant's contention that it was error for the court to have denied his request for a charge on the defense of agency is without merit. Within the parameters established by People v Argibay ( 45 N.Y.2d 45, 54, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 U.S. 930), People v. Lam Lek Chong ( 45 N.Y.2d 64, 76, cert denied 439 U.S. 935), and People v. Roche ( 45 N.Y.2d 78, 86, cert denied 439 U.S. 958), there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would have supported submission of a defense of agency.
We have examined defendant's remaining points. Several are unpreserved; all are without merit.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.