Ordered, that the judgment is affirmed.
The prosecution disproved the defendant's agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 25.00; People v Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 86, cert denied 439 U.S. 958; People v Matos, 123 A.D.2d 330, 331, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1002). The defendant, by proposing the sale and touting the quality of his drugs several times, displayed salesmanlike behavior (see, People v Viera, 116 A.D.2d 609, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 891). He had an interest in the sale as he was promised money or drugs in advance of the sale by the undercover officer, to be paid upon the completion of the transaction (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, 75, cert denied 439 U.S. 935). Further, a previous drug sale conviction was introduced into evidence in order to demonstrate the defendant's intent (see, People v Rosario, 122 A.D.2d 85, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 816; People v Monahan, 114 A.D.2d 380, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 654; cf., People v Gabriel, 125 A.D.2d 406).
We have reviewed the defendant's sentence and find it appropriate under the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86). Mangano, J.P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.