Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury. However, where there has been a judgment of conviction based on legally sufficient trial evidence, the propriety of the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of insufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence is not reviewable on appeal ( see, CPL 210.30; People v. Taylor, 225 A.D.2d 640; People v. Almodovar, 216 A.D.2d 205; People v. Alexander, 136 A.D.2d 332, 335-336; People v. Robinson, 133 A.D.2d 473; People v. Miller, 121 A.D.2d 477).
The court did not err in denying the defendant's request to charge the jury on the agency defense since there was no reasonable view of the evidence which warranted such a charge ( see, People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, cert denied sub. nom Hahn-Diguiseppe v. New York, 439 U.S. 930; People v. Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, cert denied 439 U.S. 958).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.
Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.