Court Opinion

ID: 9805646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 18:07:28.885817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:24.898374
License: Public Domain

*438Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered January 13, 2011, as amended February 3, 2011 and February 22, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second and third degrees, attempted escape in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of seven years, affirmed.
While monitoring a surveillance camera, a store employee observed defendant entering the two open sidewalk doors leading to the store’s basement and pacing back and forth in the basement with what appeared to be a flashlight. The store was located on the first floor of a seven-floor building, and all of the six floors above it consisted of residential apartments. The basement was accessible only through the sidewalk doors located outside the store, and there was no direct access from the basement to any part of the residential portion of the building, or to the store itself.
After observing defendant, the employee went outside and locked the sidewalk doors, trapping defendant in the basement. Police arrived and, after reviewing the surveillance tape, asked the employee to unlock the doors. The officers then asked defendant to climb out of the basement, and arrested him. As an officer attempted to put defendant into a patrol car he bolted, saying, “Pm not going to jail.” After a struggle with the pursuing officer, defendant was subdued. At trial, the defense was that defendant entered the basement to retrieve his cell phone after he dropped it through the open sidewalk doors.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. Defendant was properly convicted of second-degree burglary, which requires entry into a dwelling (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), based on his entry into the basement of the store located on the ground floor of a small apartment building (see People v McCray, 23 NY3d 621 [2014]).
In McCray, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the rule, established in Quinn v People (71 NY 561 [1878]), that “if a building contains a dwelling, a burglary committed in any part of that building is the burglary of a dwelling; but an exception exists where the building is large and the crime is committed in a place so remote and inaccessible from the living quarters that the special dangers inherent in the burglary of a dwelling do not exist” (McCray, 23 NY3d at 624). Although the inaccessibility requirement appears to have been met, the other condition *439for application of the exception — namely, that the building in question be “large” — has not.
Stating that the decision in McCray did not turn on the size of the building, and that the critical factor is whether there is close contiguity between the residential and nonresidential elements of the building such that the residents of the building would be aware of the burglar’s presence, the dissent would reverse the conviction for second-degree burglary because the basement was entirely sealed off and inaccessible from the residences above. However, in Quinn, which is the foundation on which McCray stands, there also was no “internal communication” between the shop that was broken into and the living quarters above, and a person had to go into the yard and then up stairs to get from one to another (Quinn at 565). Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of first-degree burglary because the shop “was within the same four outer walls, and under the same roof’ (id.). The Court reasoned that “the essence of the crime of burglary at common law is the midnight terror excited, and the liability created by it of danger to human life, growing out of the attempt to defend property from depredation. It is plain that both of these may arise, when the place entered is in close contiguity with the place of the owner’s repose, though the former has no relation to the latter by reason of domestic use or adaptation” (id. at 567).
In reaffirming the holding in Quinn, the Court of Appeals in McCray stated: “These words from almost a century and a half ago are still apt as an explanation of why burglary of a dwelling is a more serious crime than other burglaries: an intrusion into a home, or an overnight lodging, is both more frightening and more likely to end in violence. And it remains true today, as it was in 1878, that these dangers are created in significant degree when the crime is committed ‘in close contiguity’ with a ‘place of repose’ even though the place of the burglary and the sleeping quarters are not instantly accessible to each other. When a store owner in his bedroom becomes conscious that there is a burglary in the shop downstairs, or when a hotel guest hears a burglar in the coffee shop across the hall from her room, the special dangers that accompany the burglary of a dwelling are sufficiently present to justify treating the crime as a more serious one than burglary of a building where no one lives” (23 NY3d at 627 [emphasis added]).
Furthermore, in addressing the legislative history of the burglary statutes as it related to Quinn, the Court observed that “[w]e interpret the remedy adopted by the 1967 Legislature as reviving Quinn’s holding that, in general, burglary of a partly *440residential building is burglary of a dwelling, even if the burglar enters only the nonresidential part. But we do not interpret it as removing the limitation that the Quinn court placed on its own holding: In large buildings, situations can arise in which the general rule will not be applied because it does not make sense. That was the law in 1878 and is the law today” (23 NY3d at 629 [emphasis added]).
The apartment building in this case cannot be characterized as “large” within the meaning of McCray. With the residential dwellings located immediately above the store, it cannot be said that there was “virtually no risk” that the people living in the apartments would not “even be conscious” of the presence of a burglar who entered the basement through the sidewalk doors (23 NY3d at 627). Thus, as in Quinn, the scenario before us falls within the general rule, not the exception.
Defendant also challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting both of his burglary convictions with respect to the element of intent. However, the evidence supports the conclusion that defendant entered the basement with the intent to commit a crime. The jury reasonably rejected defendant’s implausible explanation for his behavior.
Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Renwick, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ.