Defendant was arrested for acting in concert in the sale of crack to an undercover officer.
Defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to establish his guilt is without merit. The evidence revealed that defendant furnished vials of crack to another who then sold the crack to an undercover officer. Thus, "the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant's conduct demonstrated an interest in promoting the transaction" and that "defendant's conduct constituted more than a mere presence." (People v. Bobbitt, 180 A.D.2d 489, 490, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1046.)
Defendant's contention that the court improperly failed to charge the jury on the standard for circumstantial evidence is unpreserved for review as a matter of law, since defense counsel never objected or took exception following the charge to the jury (CPL 470.05). In any event, not all the evidence is circumstantial, and as such defendant is not entitled to a circumstantial evidence charge (People v. Monje, 179 A.D.2d 437, 438, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 951). Finally, the charge viewed in its entirety was proper (People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817).
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Rubin, JJ.