The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence, including the entire course of conduct between defendant, the undercover officer, and the codefendant, to establish that defendant intentionally participated in the sale by taking the officer's drug order and relaying it to the codefendant ( People v Thomas, 227 A.D.2d 196, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 943). Defendant's request for an agency charge was properly denied, since it was not supported by a reasonable view of the evidence, all of which compelled the conclusion that defendant was acting as an order taker for the codefendant rather than as an agent of the undercover buyer ( People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780, 782-783; People v. Thomas, supra; People v. Perez, 209 A.D.2d 174).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.