Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal the defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the trial court's agency charge was confusing and erroneous. However, as the defendant failed to raise any objection to the agency charge as given, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, since no reasonable view of the evidence adduced at trial supports the defendant's claim that he merely acted as an agent of the police officer posing as a buyer in the subject transaction, the defendant was not entitled to an agency instruction (see, People v Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45; People v McDonald, 165 A.D.2d 837; People v Carter, 151 A.D.2d 688). In this regard, we note that the defendant's own testimony leads to the inevitable conclusion that, at the very least, he acted as a middleman in the transaction, and largely for his own benefit (see, People v Argibay, supra; People v Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 86, cert denied 439 U.S. 958; People v Thompson, 167 A.D.2d 161).
The defendant's additional claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The trial counsel's strategy and tactics, while ultimately unsuccessful, were reasonable, and upon our review of the record, we find that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.