Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995

People v. Zorilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 31, 1995

211 A.D.2d 582; 622 N.Y.S.2d 31; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 820

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Tai (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Alicea (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Guiterrez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Martinez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. O'Kane (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Dodson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Edmonds (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered October 13, 1992, convicting defendant after jury trial, of murder in the second degree and kidnapping in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

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 *583evidence 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 NY2d 264), provided relevant background information and completed the narrative (People v Castro, 101 AD2d 392, affd 65 NY2d 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 NY2d 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 NY2d 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.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.