Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the People failed to disprove the agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Bradley, 199 A.D.2d 237). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove his agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence established that the defendant's conduct evinced sufficient indicia of "[s]alesman-like behavior" (People v Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 85, cert denied 439 U.S. 958) to establish that he was not acting solely on behalf of the undercover police officer, but that he had a personal interest in promoting the transaction (see, People v Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, 53-54, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 U.S. 930; People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, 74-75, cert denied 439 U.S. 935; People v Mosqueda, 170 A.D.2d 700). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.