The jury's verdict, rejecting defendant's agency defense, was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. "The defense of agency is not intended to protect a person who arranges a drug transaction for the purpose of earning the equivalent of a finder's fee or broker's commission, in contrast to a person who performs a `favor', possibly rewarded by a tip or incidental benefit" (People v. Elvy, A.D.2d, 715 N.Y.S.2d 247, citing People v. Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, 75-76,cert denied 439 U.S. 935). In this case, there was overwhelming evidence disproving the agency defense, including defendant's own testimony that he kept $10 of the $30 given to him by the undercover officer for the purchase of drugs. "The evidence established that defendant acted primarily, if not exclusively, for his own advantage, particularly since there was no [credible] evidence that defendant had any other reason to risk arrest by assisting a total stranger in purchasing drugs" (id.).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.