You are here: / / THE GRAND LARCENY TOOK PLACE IN NEW JERSEY AND IS NOT A “RESULT OFFENSE;”...

THE GRAND LARCENY TOOK PLACE IN NEW JERSEY AND IS NOT A “RESULT OFFENSE;” THEREFORE NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the grand larceny indictment should have been dismissed because New York did not have territorial jurisdiction. The grand larceny took place in New Jersey and is not a “result offense:”

Where New York’s territorial jurisdiction over an offense is in dispute, the People bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction under CPL 20.20 beyond a reasonable doubt … . Here, the People did not dispute the defendant’s claim that none of the elements of the alleged offense occurred in New York, and did not seek to establish, for instance, that the complainant’s bank account was located in New York … . Rather, the People argued only that territorial jurisdiction was properly based on CPL 20.20(2)(a) because grand larceny was a “result offense” and the alleged “result” occurred in New York, and the County Court denied the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge on this narrow ground.

“When a specific consequence, such as the death of the victim in a homicide case, is an element of an offense, the occurrence of such consequence constitutes the ‘result’ of such offense. An offense of which a result is an element is a ‘result offense'” (CPL 20.10[3]). The elements of larceny are (1) intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or herself or to a third person, and (2) the wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of such property … . Contrary to the People’s contention, since no “specific consequence” is an element of grand larceny in the fourth degree, it follows that larceny in the fourth degree is not a “result offense” within the meaning of CPL 20.10(3) … . People v Cousar, 2021 NY Slip Op 00573, Second Dept 4-3-21

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141 BY MAKING A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, DEFENDANT AVERRED PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING TOO FAST, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON A SCAFFOLD HE WAS ERECTING BROKE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THE EFFECT THE VILLAGE WAS REQUIRED TO REPAIR A BULKHEAD/STORM DRAIN WHICH RAN THROUGH AN EASEMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; THE WOODEN BULKHEAD WHICH CRADLED THE DRAIN PIPE HAD DETERIORATED CAUSING SINK HOLES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Know Cause of Fall
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
Record-Keeping Was a Condition Precedent to Insurance Coverage
ZONING BOARD DID NOT SET OUT A FACTUAL BASIS FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRECEDENT IN THIS VARIANCE PROCEEDING, ZONING BOARD’S GRANT OF THE VARIANCES WAS THEREFORE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NYC FIRE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND... A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE...