Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly instructed the jury that it could not accept his agency defense unless he acted "solely" as the agent of the buyer, who in this case was an undercover police officer (see, People v. Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64; see also, 3 CJI[NY] PL art 220, at 1750). Moreover, the court's agency charge, viewed in its entirety, did not suggest to the jury that the defendant could not be an agent of the undercover officer if he received some benefit from the transaction. Accordingly, the defendant's claim that the court's agency charge deprived him of a fair trial is without merit. Eiber, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.