People v. McCray
23 N.Y.3d 621, 16 N.E.3d 533 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A burglary of a non-residential unit within a mixed-use building constitutes the burglary of a dwelling if the burglar has access to the residential portions of the building. An exception exists if the building is large and the non-residential unit is so remote and inaccessible from the living quarters that the special dangers inherent in a dwelling burglary are not present.
Facts:
- A large building on West 42nd Street in Manhattan contains multiple businesses, including a Hilton Hotel and a Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum.
- The hotel guest rooms are on the 17th floor and above, with lobbies on the ground and 14th floors.
- On October 6, 2009, at 10:22 p.m., Eric McCray entered a Hilton employees' locker room, located on a mezzanine accessible from the 14th-floor lobby via a stairway.
- McCray broke into a locker and then fled when an employee appeared.
- Evidence suggests McCray then traveled via internal stairways to the 16th-floor conference level, adjacent to guest floors, to cross to another stairway.
- Around 1:30 a.m. on October 7, McCray was inside the wax museum, which shared a stairway (Stairway D) with the hotel.
- The door between Stairway D and the hotel's 14th-floor lobby was unlocked, providing access from the museum area to the hotel.
- Around 4:00 a.m., McCray exited the building via Stairway D with property stolen from the wax museum.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric McCray was prosecuted for two counts of burglary in the second degree in the trial court.
- A jury found McCray guilty on both counts.
- McCray (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
- A Judge of the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted McCray leave to appeal from the Appellate Division's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person commit burglary of a dwelling when they unlawfully enter a non-residential part, such as an employee locker room or a wax museum, of a large, mixed-use building that also contains a hotel?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
Yes. A burglary committed in a non-residential part of a building that also contains a dwelling is properly classified as a burglary of a dwelling, provided the burglar has sufficient access to the living quarters to create the special dangers associated with such crimes. The court reaffirmed the rule and its exception from the 1878 case Quinn v People. The purpose of elevating the crime of burglary of a dwelling is to protect against the 'midnight terror' and potential for violence when an intruder is near where people are sleeping. This danger exists when a burglar can access residential areas, even if they only enter a commercial part. Here, the locker room burglary qualifies because the locker room was part of the hotel, and McCray used stairways providing access to floors adjacent to guest rooms. The wax museum burglary also qualifies, despite being more remote, because McCray entered it via an internal stairway connected to the hotel and could have easily re-entered the hotel lobby through an unlocked door. The ease of access is as critical as physical proximity in creating the danger that the statute seeks to prevent.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and modernizes a 19th-century legal framework, applying it to contemporary, large-scale, mixed-use buildings. It clarifies that the statutory definition of a dwelling burglary is not absolute and is subject to a common-sense 'Astor House exception' based on remoteness and inaccessibility. The court's focus on 'ease of access' over strict physical proximity provides a more flexible and functional standard for prosecutors and lower courts. This analysis will be crucial in future cases involving burglaries in complex structures like skyscrapers or shopping malls connected to residential units.
