Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We disagree with defendant's claim that Constable Pataran, a police officer with the Niagara Regional Police in the Province of Ontario, Canada, was an accomplice within the meaning of CPL 60.22. Pataran, at the time of the drug transaction, was acting pursuant to the request of and with the cooperation of the Niagara County Sheriff's Department. As a police agent he was not an accomplice because he lacked criminal intent (see, People v. Cona, 49 N.Y.2d 26, 34; People v. Bedoya, 122 A.D.2d 545, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 998). We also conclude that defendant's trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147). We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it to be lacking in merit.