You are here: / / TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY...
,

TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated defendant’s grand larceny conviction in the interest of justice because the licenses from the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) do not constitute “property” within the meaning of the grand larceny statute:

The defendant’s conviction of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35[1]) was based on the alleged theft of licenses from the TLC. “A person is guilty of grand larceny in the third degree when he or she steals property and . . . when the value of the property exceeds three thousand dollars” … .. The licenses from the TLC are not considered “property” within the meaning of the statute … . Accordingly, although the defendant’s legal insufficiency claim is unpreserved for appellate review, we vacate his conviction of grand larceny in the third degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismiss that count of the indictment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Ishtiaq, 2018 NY Slip Op 04752,, Second Dept 6-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND LARCENY, TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/GRAND LARCENY (TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/TAXI LICENSES (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND LARCENY, TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NY CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE NY STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH; PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NY CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ON A THEORY OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).
INSURANCE AGENCY ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE INSURED WHICH RESULTED IN A LOWER PREMIUM, THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Most Important Among the Criteria for Allowing a Late Notice of Claim Is the Municipality’s Timely Knowledge of the Essential Facts Underlying the Claim (Not Met Here)
ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WAS SERVED ONE DAY LATE, AND PLAINTIFF WAS SO NOTIFIED BY THE CITY, THE CITY ALSO INDICATED IN SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS THAT IT WAS CONSIDERING THE CLAIM; THE CITY WAS THEREFORE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof of the Cause of Plaintiff’s Slip and Fall Need Not Be Based Upon Plaintiff’s Personal Knowledge
THE PARTIES MARRIED IN 1974, STARTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN 1991, DISCONTINUED THE DIVORCE AND BEGAN LIVING TOGETHER AGAIN IN 1998, CONTINUED LIVING TOGETHER UNTIL THE INSTANT DIVORCE IN 2015; SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ENDED IN 1991; MATTER REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION OF THE MARITAL PROPERTY AND COUNSEL FEES (SECOND DEPT).
PROVIDING ILLEGAL HIV MEDICATIONS TO A PHARMACY FOR RESALE: (1) DID NOT CONSTITUTE GRAND LARCENY BECAUSE THE AGENT OF THE PHARMACY TO WHOM THE DRUGS WERE PROVIDED KNEW THE DRUGS WERE ILLEGAL AND THAT KNOWLEDGE IS IMPUTED TO THE CORPORATION; AND (2) DID NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL DIVERSION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS BECAUSE THE DRUGS WERE PROVIDED TO A CORPORATION, NOT TO A PERSON WHO HAD NO MEDICAL NEED FOR THEM. AN UNSEALED COMPILATION OF WIRETAP RECORDINGS CONSTRUCTED FROM SEALED ORIGINALS WAS ADMISSIBLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE... DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED...