In People v. McNamara (78 N.Y.2d 626 [1991] the complaint alleged a violation of the public lewdness statute (Penal Law 245.00 [a]). Although the Court of Appeals rejected the prosecution's request that it adopt the "broad" definition found in Penal Law 240.00, it held that for purposes of determining facial sufficiency, the interior of a parked car may be considered a "public place" under circumstances indicating that "the car's interior is visible to a member of the passing public, and that the vehicle is situated in a place where it likely would be observed by such a person." (People v. McNamara, 78 N.Y.2d at 633-634.) The Court of Appeals made clear that for purposes of determining facial sufficiency, the interior of a parked car may be considered a "public place" where the information alleges facts which establish that "the car's interior is visible to a member of the passing public, and the vehicle is situated in a place where it likely would be observed by such a person." (People v McNamara, supra at 634.) In The Court of Appeals explicitly held that the Legislature did not intend section 240.00 to apply in prosecutions for public lewdness or any other offenses defined in article 245 of the Penal Law. (See, People v McNamara, supra, at 630.) The Court reasoned that section 240.00, by its very terms, applies only to the "Offenses Against Public Order" that are defined in article 240, not to the "Offenses Against Public Sensibilities," including lewdness, that are defined in article 245. After examining the language, purpose and legislative history of the latter article, which does not expressly define a "public place," the Court concluded that the phrase was not intended to have a "cut-and-dried meaning," and declined to hold that the statutory language in section 245.00 (a) reaches all places to which " 'the public or a substantial group of persons has access.' " (See, People v McNamara, supra, at 633.)