You are here: / / RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE...

RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY (ENTRY OF DWELLING) CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant should not have been convicted of burglary (entry of a “dwelling”) because the residential area of the building could not be accessed from where he entered:

Under the narrow circumstances of this case, application of the general rule as to what constitutes a dwelling in a mixed residential and commercial building within the meaning of Penal Law § 140.00 (2) is not warranted. Defendant, from a public sidewalk, entered the open cellar doors into a basement that was both entirely disconnected from the building and completely inaccessible to the residences in that building. The basement was not contiguous to any residential units. * * * …[T]he deli basement was both inaccessible to, and remote from, the residential apartments. It was inaccessible because defendant could not go anywhere into the building from the basement. He could not reach the deli or the apartments. All that he could reach from the basement was the public sidewalk. The basement was remote given that it was not used by the residents for any purposes and that there was no proof of any relationship between that space and the residents. In sum, there was no “close contiguity” … between the basement and the dwellings. Under these facts, “the special dangers inherent in the burglary of a dwelling do not exist” … . People v Joseph, 2016 NY Slip Op 06945, CtApp 10-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY CONVICTION REVERSED)/BURGLARY (RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY CONVICTION REVERSED)/DWELLING (BURGLARY, (RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY CONVICTION REVERSED)

You might also like
APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE WRONG TEST TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW; APPLYING THE CORRECT TEST, THE JURY VERDICT WAS NOT “UTTERLY IRRATIONAL” AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.
Plaintiff’s Lost Profits Deemed “General Damages,” Not “Consequential Damages,” Re: a Distribution Contract in which Plaintiff Agreed to Resell Defendant’s Product
Although the Police Could Have Done More to Make Sure Defendant Was Not Represented by Counsel Before Questioning Him, Defendant’s Prior Attorney’s Statement to the Police that He Was No Longer Representing the Defendant Was Enough
​ THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINSTRATIVE CODE PROVISION CRIMINALIZING THE USE OF CERTAIN RESTRAINTS WHICH RESTRICT AIR AND BLOOD FLOW IS VALID (CT APP). ​
Absent Defendant Did Not Receive Effective Assistance of Counsel​
ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY.
WHERE A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN RESENTENCED BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS ILLEGAL, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE CONTROLS FOR DETERMINATION OF PREDICATE FELONY STATUS (CT APP).
IT WAS NOT ERROR TO REMOVE THE DISRUPTIVE DEFENDANT FROM THE COURTROOM WITHOUT WARNING JUST PRIOR THE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE VERDICT AND THE POLLING OF THE JURY; APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE “REMOVAL” ISSUE ON DIRECT APPEAL (CT APP).

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

PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY... PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH ...