The jury's verdict rejecting defendant's agency defense was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. The evidence established that defendant acted primarily for his own benefit in promoting the sale, and that the benefit he received cannot be described as incidental (see, People v. Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, 75, cert denied 439 U.S. 935; People v. Page, 260 A.D.2d 153, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 928).
The court's agency charge, read as a whole, conveyed the proper standards, in that the court correctly instructed the jury that it could consider a benefit received from the buyer as supportive of an agency defense (People v. Job, 87 N.Y.2d 956). Since there was no evidence to suggest that defendant was acting as a buyer in his own right, the court properly declined defendant's request to charge based upon People v. Andujas ( 79 N.Y.2d 113).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.