Opinion
June 26, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The agency charge given by the court was a correct statement of law and the jury did not request any supplemental instructions on that defense. Therefore, we find that the court's decision not to give a supplemental instruction was a proper exercise of discretion (see, e.g., People v. Coonan, 48 N.Y.2d 772; People v Sanabria, 201 A.D.2d 513).
The defendant's claim of repugnancy is unpreserved for appellate review since the defense counsel challenged the verdict after the jury was discharged (see, People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985; People v. Rogers, 177 A.D.2d 666; People v. White, 172 A.D.2d 790), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.