Opinion
May 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not entitled to a jury charge on the question of agency. No reasonable view of the evidence would lead to the conclusion that the defendant was acting solely as an agent of the buyer. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the defendant was a middleman or "steerer" of the supplier (People v Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780, 782).
The defendant's remaining contentions were either not preserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal. Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.