Upon viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, we find it legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621.) There was evidence from which the jury could conclude that defendant's conduct constituted more than mere presence and demonstrated the requisite "intent" to sell, pursuant to Penal Law § 220.39 (1) (see, People v. Tention, 162 A.D.2d 355, 356, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 991). When the undercover officer gained entry to the building lobby, where numerous drug sales were taking place, defendant approached, asked the officer what he wanted and then directed him to the precise location where the distinct brand of crack requested could be purchased (see, People v. Armstrong, 160 A.D.2d 206). That neither the pre-recorded buy money nor drugs were found on defendant does not negate his accessorial liability (People v. Serra, 104 A.D.2d 66).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.