People v Springs
2009 NY Slip Op 00314 [58 AD3d 541]
January 22, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 11, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
JohnSprings, Appellant.

[*1]Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Lauren Springer ofcounsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Craig A. Ascher of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, J., at suppression motion;Charles H. Solomon, J., at nonjury trial and sentence), rendered June 12, 2007, convictingdefendant of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2½ to 5 years,unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There was ample evidence, including, among other things, asurveillance videotape and defendant's own statements to the police, to establish that heknowingly entered a basement unlawfully, and did so with the intent to steal property.

The trial court properly declined to consider criminal trespass in the second and thirddegrees as lesser included offenses, as there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewedmost favorably to defendant, to support those charges (see e.g. People v Jones, 33 AD3d 461 [2006], lv denied 7NY3d 926 [2006]). There was no evidence to support a reasonable view that defendant, byreason of alleged intoxication or otherwise, entered the premises without the intent to steal.

The motion court properly denied that portion of defendant's suppression motion that soughta Dunaway hearing. The allegations in defendant's moving papers, when considered inthe context of the detailed information provided to defendant, were insufficient to create afactual dispute requiring such a hearing (compare People v Long, 36 AD3d 132 [2006], affd 8NY3d 1014 [2007], with People vBryant, 8 NY3d 530, 533-534 [2007]). Defendant merely claimed, in a conclusorymanner, that he had lawfully entered the building and that he was not engaged in "any illegal orillicit behavior at the time of his arrest or at [any time] prior to his arrest." However, he did notaddress the specific allegations set forth in the felony complaint and voluntary disclosure form.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias,Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.