County Court promptly gave a clarifying charge upon defendant's exception to its initial charge on the defense of agency, and no further exceptions were made by defendant. Additionally, no objections were made when, at the jury's request, the court gave further instructions on this defense. Under the circumstances, this issue was not properly preserved for review (see, People v McChesney, 160 A.D.2d 1045; People v Colon, 159 A.D.2d 582, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 732). In any event, considering the charge as a whole, we find no error that requires reversal (see, People v Lam Lee Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, cert denied 439 U.S. 935). Furthermore, while the jury could have arrived at a different conclusion on the issue of agency, that is not a basis for reversal insofar as the verdict essentially hinged in the jury's assessment of the credibility of defendant's version of the events (see, People v Rugg, 141 A.D.2d 925, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 924). Therefore, we reject defendant's claim that the court erred in failing to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. Finally, defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.
Judgment affirmed. Weiss, J.P., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.