- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- People v. Perez
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03400
Background
Defendant Jason Perez was convicted after a jury trial in Supreme Court, New York County, of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree. The convictions arose from an investigation into missing items from private offices. Surveillance video captured Perez and a codefendant entering a locked private closet to which Perez had been specifically denied access. The video showed Perez entering with empty bags, exiting the closet with the same bags now stuffed full, and then taking the full bags through a door leading to a fire exit stairwell to the street—a route that avoided security cameras. It was later discovered that merchandise and clothing valued in excess of $30,000 was missing. Perez was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison terms of two to four years. He appealed, challenging the weight of the evidence.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, applying the standards from People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 (2007), and People v. Baque, 43 NY3d 26 (2024). The Court found that the surveillance footage provided compelling proof that Perez entered the private closet knowingly, unlawfully, and with larcenous intent. The evidence showed his intentional presence in a restricted area, visible indication that he was removing items from the closet, and his use of a route that avoided security cameras and led directly to the street. These circumstances demonstrated both the unlawful entry element of burglary in the third degree and the larcenous taking element of grand larceny in the third degree.
Takeaways
Circumstantial evidence of larcenous intent can be established through surveillance footage showing a defendant entering a restricted area with empty containers, exiting with full containers, and using an exit route designed to avoid detection. The totality of the defendant’s conduct—including deliberate use of an escape route that circumvented security cameras—is relevant to establishing intent. A defendant’s known prohibition from accessing the area strengthens the inference of unlawful entry for purposes of the burglary charge, and the value of the missing items can be established through evidence of what was stored in the area prior to the incident.
Why It Matters
This decision demonstrates how surveillance video evidence can sustain burglary and grand larceny convictions even without direct evidence of the defendant physically taking specific items. The defendant’s use of an exit route designed to avoid security cameras was particularly significant in establishing criminal intent. Prosecutors handling workplace theft cases should note that a combination of restricted access evidence, surveillance footage showing entry and exit patterns, and evidence of the defendant’s awareness of security measures can create a powerful circumstantial case for both burglary and larceny charges. Defense attorneys should consider whether alternative explanations for the defendant’s conduct can be credibly advanced when surveillance evidence is this comprehensive.