
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Iadarola, Appellant.
    [634 NYS2d 738]
   —Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), rendered July 6,1994, convicting him of enterprise corruption, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant’s conviction arose from his participation with his brother (see, People v Iadarola [Benito], 222 AD2d 454 [decided herewith]) and others in a pattern of illegal gambling activity from November 1988 to July 1991. The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense of justification was disproven by the People beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 25.00 [1]; § 35.05 [1]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s request to charge the jury that he lacked the intent to commit the crimes with which he was charged because, as a confidential informant, he had a reasonable belief that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter the F.B.I.) had given him the authority to commit those crimes. There is no proof that the defendant did not intend to participate in the gambling enterprise with which he was charged. However, in view of the fact that the defendant presented evidence suggesting that he was an F.B.I. informant, the trial court properly instructed the jury that, if it found the defendant guilty of the crime of enterprise corruption, it should then consider whether the defendant’s actions were justified pursuant to Penal Law § 35.05 (1), which provides in pertinent part that criminal conduct is justified and not criminal if it is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of his duties.

The defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.  