The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant's agency defense was clearly refuted by the evidence, including defendant's testimony that he was engaged in the business of arranging drug transactions in return for a share of the drugs. Since, even under defendant's version of the facts, he received more than a tip or incidental benefit, and acted primarily, if not exclusively, for his own profit, he was not entitled to the protection afforded by the agency defense (see, People v. Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, 74-75, cert denied 439 U.S. 935; People v. Taim, A.D.2d 725 N.Y.S.2d 41; People v. Elvy, 277 A.D.2d 80, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 783).