People v. Taylor, 47 N.Y.2d 1002 (1979)
A person’s initial license to enter a building open to the public is extinguished when it becomes apparent that the building is no longer open to the public, and remaining on the premises thereafter can constitute burglary.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s burglary conviction, holding that his initial license to enter a building housing attorneys’ offices (which was initially unlocked) was extinguished when it became obvious that the building was closed to the public due to the time of day and the absence of people. The court reasoned that although the defendant may have initially had a license to enter, that license did not extend to remaining on the premises after realizing the building was not open to the public at that time. This case clarifies the scope of the “open to the public” exception in burglary statutes.
Facts
The defendant entered a building containing attorneys’ offices. The front door of the building was unlocked. Upon entering, the defendant found the reception area and individual offices empty. The time of day suggested the building was not open for business.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of burglary in the third degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain a charge of burglary in the third degree because the building housed attorneys’ offices and the front door was unlocked.
Holding
No, because the jury could find that though the defendant’s entry was initially licensed, he was not licensed to remain once it became apparent that the building was not “at the time open to the public.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the language of Penal Law § 140.00(5), which states that a person entering 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.” The court reasoned that the jury could infer from the time of day and the absence of people that the building was not, in fact, open to the public at the time the defendant remained there. Therefore, any initial license to enter was extinguished. The court emphasized that “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.” The court distinguished this case from situations where a person enters with criminal intent but arguably still possesses a license to enter; here, the license itself was deemed to have expired. This decision highlights that the