24 N.Y.3d 987 (2014)

Criminal trespass in public housing occurs when an individual knowingly enters or remains in a dwelling without license or privilege, even if in a common area, and the presence of a “No Trespassing” sign can indicate a lack of license or privilege.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision, holding that an individual can be charged with second-degree criminal trespass for being in the common area of a public housing building. The court reasoned that although public housing is government-owned, not all areas within are automatically open to the public. A person lacks a license or privilege to be in the common areas if they defy a lawful order or if rules and regulations are posted. The court also found that the misdemeanor information charging the defendant with criminal trespass was facially sufficient because it contained nonhearsay allegations establishing every element of the offense. The defendant was arrested for trespassing in a public housing building lobby, and the court addressed whether the lobby was accessible to the public.

Facts

A police officer observed the defendant in the lobby of a New York City Housing Authority building beyond the vestibule and a “No Trespassing” sign. When questioned, the defendant stated he did not live in the building and could not identify any resident who had invited him. The officer arrested him for trespassing. The defendant was charged with criminal trespass in the second degree and third degree. The defendant pleaded guilty to the second-degree charge. He appealed, arguing that the information was jurisdictionally defective because the common areas of public housing buildings are open to the public, and the information did not sufficiently allege an unlawful presence. The Appellate Term rejected his contentions.

Procedural History

The defendant was charged with second and third-degree criminal trespass. He pleaded guilty to the second-degree charge. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Term, which affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal, and ultimately affirmed the Appellate Term’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a person can be charged with second-degree criminal trespass for being in the common area of a public housing authority building.

2. Whether the misdemeanor information sufficiently alleged that the defendant’s presence in the building lobby was unlawful.

Holding

1. Yes, because the common areas of a public housing building are not necessarily open to the public, and a “No Trespassing” sign can indicate a lack of license or privilege.

2. Yes, because the information contained sufficient nonhearsay allegations establishing every element of the offense.

Court’s Reasoning

The court focused on the interpretation of “enters or remains unlawfully” under the Penal Law. The court stated that, for all degrees of criminal trespass, a person