Opinion
January 31, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.).
Evidence of defendant's drug selling operation was introduced into evidence to explain defendant's motive for directing his accomplices to kill the victim, whom defendant believed to have been selling drugs for another dealer. This evidence also explained why the victim's body was found in a car connected to defendant, how defendant could direct his accomplices to kill the victim, and why they would do so when they lacked a personal motive. Since the evidence was probative of motive (People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y.2d 264), provided relevant background information and completed the narrative (People v Castro, 101 A.D.2d 392, affd 65 N.Y.2d 683) was inextricably interwoven with the offenses charge and the probative value of the evidence outweighed the potential for undue prejudice (People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242), we find no abuse of discretion in the court's ruling.
By failing to seek relief pursuant to CPL 440.10, defendant has failed to provide an adequate record upon which we can review his present claim of ineffective representation of counsel (People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 1000). On the present state of the record, we cannot conclude that defendant was denied meaningful representation.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.