Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to disprove the defense of agency beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. While the defendant did not initiate the drug transaction, his salesmanlike behavior, the absence of any prior relationship between the defendant and the undercover officer, and the defendant's admission that he received a small amount of crack cocaine from his supplier as payment for conducting the transaction, were all factors sufficient for the jury to reject the agency defense (see, People v. Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, cert denied 439 U.S. 958; 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. Scogna, 173 A.D.2d 874; People v. Johnson, 173 A.D.2d 734; People v. Torres, 150 A.D.2d 816; People v. Scott, 134 A.D.2d 379, 380).
Moreover, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.