Opinion
March 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence that defendant "steered" an undercover officer to the codefendant for the purchase of valium (see, People v. Ray, 188 A.D.2d 288, 289, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 845). The fact that neither the prerecorded buy money nor drugs were found on defendant does not negate her accessorial liability under Penal Law § 20.00 (People v. Smith, 179 A.D.2d 355, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 953). Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
Defendant's claim that the court's instructions near the end of its charge that the jury "should make every effort to come to [an] agreement which speaks the truth as far as this case is concerned" diluted the People's burden of proof is not preserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Ellis, 184 A.D.2d 307, 308, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 929). In any event, were we to review the claim in the interest of justice, we would find that the charge as a whole conveyed the appropriate legal standards concerning the People's burden of proof (see, People v Rosa, 187 A.D.2d 355, 356, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 892).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.