32:T525,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"People v. Estrada, 192 A.D.2d 495","datePublished":"1993-04-29","legislationDate":"1993-04-29","citation":"People v. Estrada, 192 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","description":"Read the full text of People v. Estrada (People v. Estrada, 192 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)). This legal opinion, filed in 1993-04-29, from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/people-v-estrada--5960344"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/people-v-estrada--5960344","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, People v. Estrada, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, People v. Estrada, 192 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T43e,

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered January 18, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

In the absence of additional facts that might have been developed had a motion been made pursuant to CPL 440.10, we cannot conclude that defendant’s counsel was ineffective on this record, merely because counsel, faced with overwhelming evidence of guilt, presented a risky defense (People v Love, 57 NY2d 998). Accordingly, defendant has failed to show that any possible improper actions on the part of his attorney prejudiced the outcome of the trial (People v Mackey, 155 AD2d 297).

We have considered defendant’s remaining claims, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.