Opinion
December 1, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard C. Failla, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), defendant's guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence. The People's evidence established that defendant "steered" an undercover officer to the codefendant for the purchase of the heroin. This testimony provided legally sufficient evidence of defendant's complicity under Penal Law § 20.00.
Defendant failed to request submission of an agency defense, and accordingly, the claim is unpreserved. In any event, there is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant acted merely to assist the undercover officer. Rather, defendant initiated the sale, directed the officer to the seller, and communicated afterwards with the seller (see, e.g., People v Windley, 78 A.D.2d 55, 57-58). Thus, counsel's failure to request submission of the defense did not deprive defendant of meaningful representation under the standards set forth in People v Baldi ( 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.