You are here: / / First Degree Burglary Conviction Upheld Even though the Residential Portion...

First Degree Burglary Conviction Upheld Even though the Residential Portion of the Building Was Not Accessible from the Basement of the First-Floor Store Where the Defendant Entered the Building

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant was properly convicted of first degree burglary even though the residential portion of the building could not be accessed from the the basement of the first-floor store, where defendant entered the building.  The majority found that the exception fashioned for “large” buildings where the residents could not be aware of the defendant’s presence in the non-residential portion of the building did not apply:

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 for 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). People v Joseph, 2015 NY Slip Op 00299, 1st Dept 1-13-15

 

You might also like
CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT ARE NOT PENALTIES, INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE FOR PENALTIES DID NOT APPLY.
Statutory Presumption of Possession of Weapons Recovered from Vehicle Confers on Vehicle-Occupants Automatic Standing to Move to Suppress
Complaint Sufficiently Alleged Facts to Support Piercing the Corporate Veil
ALTHOUGH THE BOOM TRUCK WAS 700 FEET FROM WHERE IT WAS LOADED WHEN THE BOOM STRUCK AN OVERHEAD SIGN, THE TRUCK WAS AT THE WORK SITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION ADDRESSED THE POSITION OF THE BOOM BUT NOT THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE PROVISION WAS BROADLY WORDED AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION 1ST DEPT.
DOCTRINE OF INDEFINITENESS IMPROPERLY APPLIED TO ORAL CONTRACT; BOTH QUANTUM MERUIT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT PROPERLY PLED WHERE DEFENDANTS DENY EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT.
DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS WAIVED A DEFENSE WITHOUT THEIR CLIENTS’ CONSENT; THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
HERE THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE TEN-DAY’S NOTICE THEY WERE SEEKING A HIGHER SORA RISK LEVEL THAN THAT RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD WARRANTED A REDUCTION FROM LEVEL THREE TO TWO; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REPLY TO THE LATE NOTICE DID NOT WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT (FIRST 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

Proof Insufficient to Demonstrate Will Drafted and Signed a Few Days Before... Conditions Spelled Out in an Irrevocable Stand-By Letter of Credit Had Been...