Opinion
September 18, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J.).
Police officers, responding to a 911 call received at approximately 8:00 P.M. reporting an intruder in a closed commercial building, arrived at the location and once inside, on the fifth floor, observed the defendant descending a stairway from the sixth floor with a shopping bag in hand. In the shopping bag, the officers observed a sweater which was later determined to have been taken from a store on the seventh floor of the building. The defendant gave no response when the police inquired whether he worked in the building. When further questioned as to the contents in the shopping bag, defendant stated to police, "I don't know * * * I just found these upstairs".
The defendant was arrested. In a postarrest statement, he admitted hiding in a bathroom prior to the building's closing, stating that he and a building security guard had planned that he, after hours, would remove from the building merchandise previously gathered by the security guard. In fact, on a stairway between the sixth and seventh floors, a box containing additional merchandise was discovered.
Defendant, at trial, denied making the postarrest statements and stated that he was inside the building seeking a job. Defendant, however, acknowledged that he learned from a member of the building's cleaning staff that the building was closing, some 50 minutes before he was found on the fifth floor by police.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal, that insufficient evidence was offered to prove he knowingly remained unlawfully within the building, is belied by overwhelming evidence. The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), demonstrates that defendant knowingly remained unlawfully within the building, intending to commit a crime therein.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.