Opinion
September 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference ( People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence that he intentionally aided his accomplices by steering an undercover officer to them for the purchase of drugs, directing one accomplice to provide him with drugs, acting as a lookout during the sale, and by remaining with the accomplices after the sale was completed ( see, People v Kearse, 215 A.D.2d 104, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 797). The testimony adduced at trial established "that defendant's interest in promoting the transaction and involvement therein went `beyond being a mere extension of the buyer'" ( supra, at 105, quoting People v Tention, 162 A.D.2d 355, 356, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 991).
By raising an agency defense during his testimony, defendant opened the door to cross-examination concerning his prior crimes in order to promote the jury's consideration of the issue whether he was a seller or merely doing a favor for a friend ( see, People v Castaneda, 173 A.D.2d 349, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 963).
Defendant's contention that suppression of a statement he made to his accomplices was required due to the People's failure to provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1)(a) is unpreserved (CPL 470.05; People v Guerrero, 69 N.Y.2d 628, revg on dissenting opn 111 A.D.2d 350, 355-356), and without merit. The People were not required to provide such notice since defendant's accomplices were not "public servants" ( see, People v Rivera, 210 A.D.2d 178, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 865). Moreover, such statement did not have to be specified in the People's bill of particulars (CPL 200.95; see, People v Bignall, 195 A.D.2d 997, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 891).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.