Opinion
February 16, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Since the defendant failed to object to the agency charge as given, his contention that the charge was erroneous and confusing is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, 53; People v. Beyda, 170 A.D.2d 612). In any event, the charge adequately instructed the jury as to the agency defense ( see, People v. Andujas, 79 N.Y.2d 113, 118; cf., People v. Spradley, 249 A.D.2d 339).
Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.