Contrary to defendant's contention, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495-496), which warranted the jury's conclusion that defendant was a participant in the drug sale for which she was convicted, and not a mere purveyor of general information as to where drugs could be obtained (see People v. Gonzalez, 283 A.D.2d 278, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 939).
Defendant's claim that the drugs recovered from the police van in which she was transported subsequent to her arrest were improperly received in evidence was not preserved as a matter of law for appellate review by the requisite specific objection. Were we to review the claim, we would find it without merit (see People v. Luna, 261 A.D.2d 245, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1004, habeas corpus denied, Luna v. Mazzuca, 2002 U.S. Dist LEXIS 15202 [SD NY, July 22, 2002]). We note as well that the evidence was admitted with appropriate limiting instructions to prevent the jury from drawing inferences as to defendant's propensity for conduct such as that with which she had been charged.
There was no evidence that defendant was acting as an agent of the undercover officer, a complete stranger to her with whom she did not converse (see People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Vaughn, 300 A.D.2d 104, 750 N.Y.S.2d 846, 847) and, accordingly, there is no basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated upon the failure to present an agency defense.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.