Running head: APPLYING LEGAL AUTHORITY AND REASONING

Applying Legal Authority and Reasoning

After going through the opinions of all the three cases in question, the case People v.

Barney, 99 N.Y.2d 367 (2003) appears to be the most analogous to the Instant Case. This is

because though the issue in all the cases relate to N.Y. Penal Law § 140.25 [2]., Penal Law§

140.00[3], and, Penal Law § 140.20., in People v. Barney, 99 N.Y.2d 367 (2003), the court holds

that the defendant broke into a ‘dwelling’ as distinct from a ‘building’, at night, with intent to

commit a crime therein and is therefore guilty of burglary in the second degree. In the Instant

Case too, the defendant broke into the dwelling with the intent to commit a crime at night. A

person (the friend in this case) could have been easily present thereby increasing the likelihood

of physical injury to the occupant in attempting to defend the home against the break-in. There

was food in the refrigerator and just because the owner was away on vacation for two months,

the dwelling could not be considered as other than ‘usually occupied’ given the arrangement

made by the owner with the friend to stay overnight once a week to look over the premises for

the owner.

The differences between the Instant Case and the other burglary cases are as follows.

In People v. Quattlebaum, 91 N.Y.2d 744 (1998), the premises that the defendant broke into was

the Convent School of the Religious of the Sacred Heart in Manhattan and the defendant broke

into the administrative offices in the First Floor. Though one of the offices had a bed and another

had a chair which could be used for sleeping, the bed was rarely used by any authorized person

staying overnight and such occurrences were between 25 to 30 times in a year, which can be

called as rare. Further, on the night of the break in, there was no one staying on any floor of the

building. Therefore the court concluded that as per the statute Penal Law § 140.00[3], the

building could not be considered as being ‘usually occupied’. The court also cited People v
 2
APPLYING LEGAL AUTHORITY AND REASONING
Sheirod (124 AD2d 14) as per which three factors were established to be used for analysis in

determining whether the building was, in fact, a dwelling: (1) whether the nature of the structure

was such that it was adapted for occupancy at the time of the wrongful entry; (2) the intent of the

owner to return; and, (3) whether, on the date of the entry, a person could have occupied the

structure overnight. In case of People v. Quattlebaum, use of this analysis proved that the

building could not be considered as a ‘dwelling’ and therefore the defendant’s conviction was

charged down to burglary in the third degree.

In People v. Murray, 278 A.D.2d 898 (2000), the defendant had broken into a two family rental

apartment neither of which was occupied, the upstairs apartment having been vacant for a few

months and the downstairs apartment having been boarded up by the landlord several weeks

earlier to keep out the tenants who had an illegal gambling operation there. The court held that

there was insufficient evidence to prove that the building was a dwelling which is defined as a

building "usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night" as per the terms of the statute

Penal Law § 140.00 [3]. The court also cited People v Quattlebaum and People v Sheirod in

support of their reasoning and reduced the conviction of the defendant from burglary in the

second degree to that in the third degree.

I will define the key issue/question applicable in the Instant case as under the N.Y statute

of Penal Law § 140.00[3], whether the building that the defendant broke into at night can be

considered as a ‘dwelling’ defined as ‘usually occupied by a person lodging there at night’? I can

also argue citing the case of People v. Sheirod and the three pronged rule established therein to

determine whether the premises broken into is a dwelling or a building. Further, I can also argue

that the fact that there was food in the refrigerator and the arrangement that the owner had made
 3
APPLYING LEGAL AUTHORITY AND REASONING
for the friend to stay overnight proves it was a dwelling as the defendant could be in no way sure

that the friend would not be occupying the premises on the night of the break in.

***********

Cases cited:

People v. Quattlebaum, 91 N.Y.2d 744 (1998)

People v. Barney, 99 N.Y.2d 367 (2003)

People v. Murray, 278 A.D.2d 898 (2000)

People v. Sheirod 124 A.D.2d 14 (1987)

References:

Leagle, Inc. (2017) People v Murray Retrieved from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/20001176278ad2d8981141

Leagle, Inc. (2017) People v Barney Retrieved from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/200346699ny2d3671430

Legal Information Institute (2018) The People & C., Respondent v Tyrone Quattlebaum,

Appellant 91 N.Y.2d 744 (1988). Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I98_0073.htm