People v. Powell
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- McKay v. City of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- Gentry v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)
- Ray v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
- People v. Czerminski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- People v. Bethune (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- People v. Barksdale (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Terry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- In re Tyshawn J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- People v. McKeever (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- People v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. Watson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Pratt (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1995)
- People v. Clarke (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. DeLarosa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Graves (N.Y. 1990)
- People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People v. Gaines (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Eady (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Cunningham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Milo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Commissioner of Transportation v. Lane (New York Supreme Court 1989)
- People v. James (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Powers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Hutchinson (New York Supreme Court 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
It cannot be said that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge of burglary in the third degree simply because the building housed attorneys’ offices and the front door was unlocked. Subdivision 5 of section 140.00 of the Penal Law provides that “A person who * * * enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain” (emphasis supplied). The jury could find on the evidence before it that though defendant’s entry was licensed, he was not licensed to remain because it was apparent after his entry from the time of the day and the absence of any persons in the reception area or individual offices that the building was not “at the time open to the public”.
Nor was it error to decline to charge as requested that “the fact that defendant might have entered with criminal intent does not extinguish his otherwise existing license to *1011 enter if the jury finds that such a license exists” (cf. People v Brown, 25 NY2d 374). Under the circumstances of this case, the requested charge was irrelevant, the only issue being whether defendant remained after discovering that the apparent license to enter did not exist because the building was not at the time open to the public. On that question the charge as given was sufficient.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.