Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the People failed, as a matter of law, to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting solely as an agent of a police informer and that the trial court should have granted his dismissal motion at the close of proof. We disagree. In our view, the trial court properly submitted this issue to the jury to decide as a question of fact in determining whether defendant was guilty of criminal sale of marihuana (see, People v. Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, 73-75, cert denied 439 U.S. 935; People v Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 85-86, cert denied 439 U.S. 958; People v Torres, 150 A.D.2d 816, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 820). Additionally, whether defendant was acting as the buyer's agent is not a defense to a possession charge (see, People v. Lam Lek Chong, supra, at 74).