PEOPLE v. VAUGHAN

Defendant has failed to preserve his contention that the court should have delivered an agency charge (see People v. Maria, 232 A.D.2d 280), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant agreed to participate in this crime only because he wished to serve as an agent for the buyer (see People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, 74-75, cert denied 439 U.S. 935). We note, inter alia, that defendant's behavior was completely consistent with that of a participant in a drug-selling enterprise, that there was no evidence of any conversation between defendant and the undercover purchaser as to why the latter needed or wanted to be represented by an "agent" instead of simply buying his own drugs, and that there was no evidence of any motive for defendant to purchase drugs for a total stranger. Accordingly, contrary to defendant's additional argument, counsel was not ineffective for failing to request an agency charge. Furthermore, the record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714).

Since defendant has not provided an adequate record on appeal, his claims regarding the denial of his speedy trial motion are not reviewable by this Court (see People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 320). To the extent the existing record permits review, we find that neither defendant's statutory nor constitutional rights were violated.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.