You are here: / / Uninhabited Trailer Met Definition of a “Building” Within the...

Uninhabited Trailer Met Definition of a “Building” Within the Meaning of the Arson Statute

The Fourth Department determined that a trailer that periodically was used as lodging, although not so used at the time of the fire, constituted a “building” within the meaning of the arson statute:

“The ‘ordinary meaning’ of the term ‘building’ has been alternatively defined as ‘a constructed edifice designed to stand more or less permanently, covering a space of land, usu[ally] covered by a roof and more or less completely enclosed by walls, and serving as a dwelling’ . . . , ‘a structure with a roof and walls’ . . . and ‘[a] structure or edifice inclosing a space within its walls and usually, but not necessarily, covered with a roof’ . . . The term generally, though not always, implies the idea of a habitat for a person’s permanent use or an erection connected with his or her permanent use” … .

Inasmuch as the trailer herein was “a constructed edifice enclosed by walls, covered by a roof, designed to stand permanently, and serving a useful purpose, it is included within the ordinary meaning of the word ‘building’ ” … . …In addition to furnishings for sleeping, the trailer had a bathroom and a kitchen. Moreover, the trailer was equipped with a power cord for immediate access to power and a propane tank that could be used to power the refrigerator and heaters. At the time of the arson, the trailer was being used to secure the owners’ property while they were remodeling the inside of their house. In any event, with respect to the trailer’s character as a building in the ordinary sense of the word, it is of no moment that no one was actually residing in the trailer on the day of the incident … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that the trailer did not fit within the ordinary meaning of the term, we conclude that it constituted a building under the secondary definition of building contained in the statute, i.e., a “structure . . . used for overnight lodging of persons, or used by persons for carrying on business therein” (Penal Law § 150.00 [1]). Defendant recognized that the trailer was used for overnight lodging “on ‘vacations’ or weekend retreats,” and it is undisputed that defendant had previously rented the trailer as overnight lodging for a period of four months. Although no one was residing in the trailer on the day of the fire, we likewise conclude that such fact does not alter the essential character of the structure as one used for overnight lodging. People v Norcutt, 195, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

You might also like
THE DETERIORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FATHER AND MOTHER WAS A SUFFICIENT CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO WARRANT AN INQUIRY RE: FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; AFTER CONSIDERING THE MERITS, THE APPELLATE COURT AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF PROPERTY JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER INDICTMENT, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
STIPULATION WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRWAY WHICH COLLAPSED WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, ONLY TEMPORARY STAIRWAYS ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PROJECT MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS MED MAL CASE TO RESCIND THE CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT PROVIDERS WHICH DISCOURAGED THEM FROM SPEAKING WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY WAS IMPROPERLY ISSUING AN ADVISORY OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).
BOTH THE GRAND JURY AND THE TRIAL JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFENSE OF INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, INDICTMENT DISMISSED.
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION RELIED ON EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT AN ACTION FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT BY SUMMONS IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 (FOURTH DEPT),
A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Victim’s Statements Admissible as Excited Utterances Despite the Passage... Inadequate Supervision and Unsanitary Living Conditions Warranted a Neglect...