From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1994
204 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 19, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).


Contrary to defendant's unpreserved claim, the trial court did not constructively amend the indictment and enlarge the People's theory of burglary by instructing the jury that the term "building" included the separate units within. Under Penal Law § 140.00 (2), the term "building" encompasses the individual offices within the physical building and the People's Bill of Particulars specified that defendant knowingly possessed property stolen from inside certain offices at 44 Wall Street.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1994
204 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. James

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CRAIG JAMES, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 19, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 131

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. Superintendent of Clinton Corr. Facility

Under Penal Law § 140.00(2), a unit within a building is a building for the purposes of the burglary statute,…

People v. Ransdell

Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Contrary to defendant's claim, the police reasonably…