New York Court of Appeals, 1985

People v. Mincione

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 19, 1985

66 N.Y.2d 995; 499 N.Y.S.2d 383; 489 N.E.2d 1285; 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18350

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Chapman (New York Supreme Court 1994)
United States v. Paul Prater (6th Cir. 2014)
People v. Ruiz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
People v. McCollum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Harrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Martin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Wandell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Marino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Rosato (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Silva (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)

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 of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The issue on appeal is whether the van involved in this crime, used by a greenhouse construction company primarily to transport workers, materials and tools, is a "building” within the meaning of the burglary statutes. The definition of a "building” found in Penal Law § 140.00 (2) includes an *997"inclosed motor truck” and a "vehicle * * * used by persons for carrying on business therein”.

We conclude that the van in question meets the statutory definition of a building because it may be considered either an "inclosed motor truck” or a vehicle used for "carrying on business therein”. That interpretation is consonant both with the legislative intent of the statute and with the historical scope of its judicial construction (see, People v Richards, 108 NY 137; Hechtman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 140.00, pp 11-13).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.