Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The issue with respect to whether an agency defense existed was raised and, therefore, preserved by the defendant's statements at the time of the plea which alerted the court to the insufficiency of the guilty plea (see, People v Serrano, 15 N.Y.2d 304, 309). When apprised of the existence of a possible agency defense, the court conducted an extensive inquiry to determine that the defendant was aware of and understood the elements of the crime to which he was pleading, including the possibility of an agency defense.
We find that the defendant's plea was entered into knowingly, voluntarily and with understanding of the consequences (see, North Carolina v Alford, 400 U.S. 25). There is no suggestion in the record that the plea was improvident or baseless, especially given the plea-bargaining agreement which avoided the risk of the defendant's conviction, upon a trial, of the more serious crimes charged in the indictment (see, People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 350, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 U.S. 1067; People v Langhorn, 119 A.D.2d 844, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 758). Mangano, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.