Summary
finding that an officer was reasonable in concluding that a hallway was not “open to the public” where “[t]he apartment building in question ... was locked at the front door and ... [t]here was also a ‘No Trespassing’ sign in both English and Spanish posted at the entrance”
Summary of this case from McKay v. City of N.Y.Opinion
June 28, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.).
On August 27, 1989, defendant was observed by a tenant pushing a metal device into the cylinder locks of the entrance doors to two apartments.
On appeal defendant asserts that the hallway in which he was observed was not a dwelling but a public place. Therefore, it is urged that all the elements of the crime of burglary were not met. We do not agree.
The term dwelling is defined by Penal Law § 140.00 (3) as a "building" which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night. People v. McCurdy ( 86 A.D.2d 493, 497-498 [2d Dept 1982]) recognized that while hallways of multioccupant dwellings are often of a public nature, the hallway of a brownstone with a locked front door should be considered part of the dwelling. The apartment building in question is six stories, but also was locked at the front door and was equipped with a buzzer and intercom system. There was also a "No Trespassing" sign in both English and Spanish posted at the entrance.
More recently, in People v. Rodriquez ( 159 A.D.2d 201 [1st Dept 1990]), we held that the first-floor stairwell of a housing project separated from the lobby by a door was open only to building residents and their invitees.
Defendant's remaining claims relating to summation comments, none of which was preserved (CPL 470.05), nonetheless, are meritless.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.