discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sanford A burglary is complete at the moment of the unlawful entry with the appropriate mens rea (see generally James, 114 AD3d at 1204 ), and we conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that entitled defendant to a renunciation charge (see People v Franco, 287 AD2d 367, 367-368 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 681 [2001]; cf. People v Ervin, 57 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2008]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sanford A burglary is complete at the moment of the unlawful entry with the appropriate mens rea (see generally James, 114 AD3d at 1204 ), and we conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that entitled defendant to a renunciation charge (see People v Franco, 287 AD2d 367, 367-368 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 681 [2001]; cf. People v Ervin, 57 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2008]).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Cruz Additionally, there is no indication that before the interrogation, that defendant had expressed a desire to speak to police ( see People v Walker , 129 AD3d 1590 [suppression warranted of inculpatory statement produced in second interrogation, in the same location less than 10 minutes after the first inculpatory statement]; see also People v Ervin , 57 AD3d 1398 ; People Van Patten , 48 AD3d 30 ).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Cruz Additionally, there is no indication that before the interrogation, that defendant had expressed a desire to speak to police ( see People v Walker , 129 AD3d 1590 [suppression warranted of inculpatory statement produced in second interrogation, in the same location less than 10 minutes after the first inculpatory statement]; see also People v Ervin , 57 AD3d 1398 ; People Van Patten , 48 AD3d 30 ).