History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Mincione
66 N.Y.2d 995
NY
1985
Check Treatment

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The issue on appeal is whether the van involved in this crime, used by a greenhouse construction company primarily to transport workers, materials and tools, is a "building” within the meaning of the burglary statutes. The definition of a "building” found in Penal Law § 140.00 (2) includes an *997"inclosed motor truck” and a "vehicle * * * used by persons for carrying on business therein”.

We conclude that the van in question meets the statutory definition of a building because it may be considered either an "inclosed motor truck” or a vehicle used for "carrying on business therein”. That interpretation is consonant both with the legislative intent of the statute and with the historical scope of its judicial construction (see, People v Richards, 108 NY 137; Hechtman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 140.00, pp 11-13).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Mincione
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Dec 19, 1985
Citation: 66 N.Y.2d 995
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.