Judgment affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court's charge on intent shifted the burden of proof and that the court should have instructed the jury on the law of agency. However, at trial, upon the defendant's instructions, defense counsel made no request to charge and no exception was taken to the charge as given. Accordingly, any error of law was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279-280). Moreover, we have examined the charge and conclude that reversal is unwarranted in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant also claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. However, the record reveals that the defendant instructed his counsel not to interpose a defense — indeed, not to participate in the trial at all. Having taken such a posture at trial, we find that the defendant has waived any claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 7-7; Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 228-230).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.