Viewed in a light most favorable to the People, the evidence that defendant steered the undercover officer to a codefendant for the purchase of cocaine, told the latter to "hook [the officer] up", remained at the scene of the sale throughout its commission looking up and down the block, and remained with a second codefendant who had supplied the first with drugs after the sale was completed, was legally sufficient to prove defendant's guilt ( People v. Kearse, 215 A.D.2d 104, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 797; People v. Davis, 202 A.D.2d 325, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 910). Defendant's accessorial liability under Penal Law § 20.00 is not negated by the fact that he possessed neither buy money nor any drugs when arrested ( People v. Davis, supra), or that he was otherwise silent throughout the sale ( People v. Tention, 162 A.D.2d 355, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 991). Defendant's claim that the court erred in not charging the jury on the defense of agency is unpreserved as a matter of law ( People v. Ray, 188 A.D.2d 288, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 845), and, in any event, without merit ( see, People v. Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780). Defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation are also unpreserved, and, in any event, without merit. We have considered defendant's remaining claims and find that they did not warrant corrective action.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.