Opinion
December 19, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leon Becker, J.).
Defendant's failure to object at trial to the jury charge, or any part of it, or to request an agency charge, forecloses this court from considering his claims as a matter of law. (People v Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, 50.) Moreover, were we to consider the claims of defendant in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm.
A jury instruction regarding the defense of agency should be submitted "where there is at least some evidence, however slight, to support the inference that the supposed agent was acting, in effect, as an extension of the buyer" (People v Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, 55, supra). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that such a relationship existed here. The factors which tend to warrant an agency instruction, such as those enumerated in People v Lam Lek Chong ( 45 N.Y.2d 64, 75), are not sufficiently present here to warrant a jury instruction on the agency defense.
Additionally, defendant's sentence was not an abuse of discretion on the part of the sentencing court. (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305-306.) The sentencing court properly weighed all factors, including defendant's family ties and employment history, and the nature of the crime and defendant's criminal history, in imposing the sentence.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.