Notwithstanding the general proscription against the admission of evidence of uncharged criminal conduct (see, People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264), evidence that defendant and two witnesses had engaged in prior and contemporaneous drug transactions was admissible because it was inextricably interwoven with the events leading to the crime charged (People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364), was essential to "complete the narrative" (People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932), and was necessary, as background material, to facilitate the jury's understanding of the relationship among the parties (People v. Le Grand, 76 A.D.2d 706, 710). Further, the probative value of this evidence far outweighed the potential for undue prejudice (People v. Powell, 157 A.D.2d 524, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 923).
The trial court properly instructed the jury on the defense of justification (People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96). The trial evidence offered no basis for a belief that defendant was about to be subjected to deadly physical force without avenue for retreat, nor was there any basis for justifying defendant's use of his service revolver pursuant to his duties as a correction officer. Defendant had not reported for duty in months, was not in the process of effecting an arrest, was not pursuing an investigation, nor did he report the shooting.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.