Opinion
January 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Ortiz, 76 N.Y.2d 446; People v. Ramos, 186 A.D.2d 446). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
There was no reasonable view of the evidence which would warrant charging the jury on the agency defense (see, People v Herring, supra; People v. Ortiz, supra; People v. Windley, 78 A.D.2d 55). In addition, the court's reasonable doubt charge did not diminish the People's burden of proof (see, People v. Russell, 266 N.Y. 147; People v. Grant, 132 A.D.2d 619; People v. Rosa, 162 A.D.2d 257).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.