Opinion
July 7, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthews, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must, we find that, based on the testimony presented by an undercover officer and the defendant, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, since a "`rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt'" (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, quoting from Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319). With regard to the agency defense, the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant exhibited "`salesmanlike behavior'" (cf. People v Bethea, 73 A.D.2d 920, 921, quoting from People v Gonzalez, 66 A.D.2d 828). Moreover, the trial court did not err in allowing cross-examination as to the defendant's two convictions in 1975 involving drug-related offenses in 1972. Such evidence was admissible to rebut an asserted agency defense since the defendant placed his intent to commit such crimes in issue (see, People v Calvano, 30 N.Y.2d 199, 203, 205; People v Smith, 103 A.D.2d 859; People v Heffron, 59 A.D.2d 263, 268; People v O'Keefe, 87 Misc.2d 739, 741).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.