Opinion
November 28, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.).
It cannot be said that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the burglary charge simply because of the absence of signs or barriers prohibiting entrance into the office from which defendant appropriated a computer. Even if defendant's entry into the office was licensed, the fact finder could find that he knew he was not permitted to remain because it was apparent after his entry, from the time of the day, after 6:00 P.M. on a Friday night, and the absence of any persons in the reception area or interior offices, that the office was not at the time open to the public ( People v Powell, 58 N.Y.2d 1009; cf., People v Lloyd,
180 A.D.2d 527, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1003).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.