Defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to charge an agency defense is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support an inference that the supposed agent was acting as an extension of the undercover buyer (People v. Gibbons, 156 A.D.2d 263, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 919). Even under defendant's version of events, defendant sought to accommodate his companion, whom defendant knew to be a drug dealer, by inquiring as to what the undercover police officer wanted in the bodega, and not the undercover, whom defendant stated was a stranger. Defendant willingly passed along the $10 bill to his companion even while exclaiming that he would not assist the undercover in the transaction; there was no testimony that defendant felt coerced at that moment. The fact that no drugs or prerecorded buy money were recovered from defendant is not unusual given the separate roles played by drug dealing accomplices in order to avoid detection (People v. McKinnon, 176 A.D.2d 193, 194, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 829).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.