The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of the evidence permitted a reasonable conclusion that defendant's careful questioning of the undercover officer was part of the drug selling operation and that defendant was not merely assisting a stranger in locating a supplier of drugs, but could have been a screener or steerer. Also, the jury was free to reject defendant's agency defense which was properly charged without objection by defendant ( see, People v. Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, 73-76).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.