Opinion
November 16, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence disproved the agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). The testimony of the undercover officer established that there was no relationship between him and the defendant. The jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was either the seller or the agent thereof. The defendant's conduct evinced sufficient indicia of "salesman-like behavior" (see, People v. Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 85, cert denied 439 U.S. 958) to establish that he was not acting on behalf of the undercover police buyer alone and had a personal interest in promoting the transaction (see, People v. Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, 53-54, rearg denied 45 N.Y.2d 839, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v. New York, 439 U.S. 930).
The defendant further argues that the prosecutor's summation deprived him of a fair trial. Our review of the record reveals that the prosecutor's summation did not exceed the broad bounds of fair comment permissible in closing argument (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v. Allen, 121 A.D.2d 453, affd 69 N.Y.2d 915), and was, in part, in response to defense counsel's own summation arguments (see, People v. Ortiz, 116 A.D.2d 531).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Niehoff, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.