You are here: / / DEFENDANT TOOK A KEY, GOT IN A U-HAUL VAN, SAT FOR TWO MINUTES AND GOT...
,

DEFENDANT TOOK A KEY, GOT IN A U-HAUL VAN, SAT FOR TWO MINUTES AND GOT OUT OF THE VAN; THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF ITS PROPERTY; GRAND LARCENY AND POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing larceny and possession of stolen property convictions, determined the evidence defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the U-Haul van of its property was insufficient. Defendant took a key to the van, sat in it for two minutes, and then got out of the van:

… [I]n order to sustain a conviction for grand larceny the People must establish that the defendant had the requisite larcenous intent, which means the “intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person” (Penal Law § 155.05[1]).

“[T]he concepts of ‘deprive’ and ‘appropriate,’ which ‘are essential to a definition of larcenous intent,’ ‘connote a purpose . . . to exert permanent or virtually permanent control over the property taken, or to cause permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use thereof'” … . For that reason, “[t]he mens rea element of larceny . . . is simply not satisfied by an intent temporarily to use property without the owner’s permission” … .

… [T]he evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the U-Haul van. …

… [A]jury could rationally infer that the defendant intended to use the van temporarily. To prove grand larceny, however, the People had to do more than prove that the defendant intended to use the van temporarily. They had to prove, in addition, that the defendant intended to “permanently deprive an owner of his or her property or to deprive the owner of it for so extended a period of time that a major portion of its economic value is lost” … . People v Golding, 2022 NY Slip Op 03741, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: Grand Larceny includes the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Here defendant took a key to a U-Haul van, got in the van, sat for two minutes, and got out of the van. There was, therefore, no proof of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of its property. Because grand larceny was not proven, possession of stolen property was not proven as well.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO FLESH OUT RELATIONSHIP AMONG PARTIES, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT TO ADD PARTY, NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR SUIT AGAINST LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TWO YOUNG MEN DID NOT REALIZE THE CONCRETE THEY WERE MOVING WAS A CESSPOOL COVER; ONE FELL IN AND THE OTHER JUMPED IN TO RESCUE HIM; BOTH DIED FROM CHEMICAL ASPHYXIATION; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE COVER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, WHETHER THE CESSPOOL CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND WHETHER THE RESCUE ATTEMPT WAS FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Risk of Slipping on a Diving Board Was Increased by Worn Traction Strips
PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM BOARD MEMBERS MAY BE LIABLE FOR UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF SHAREHOLDERS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF COMMON CHARGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
ATTORNEYS’ FEES NOT AVAILABLE TO INSURED WHO BRINGS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO SETTLE RIGHTS UNDER A POLICY; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING NOT DUPLICATIVE OF CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

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

THE HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL WAS CHARGED WITH GIVING STUDENTS UNAUTHORIZED CREDITS... AN INQUIRY MADE BY THE COURT CLERK OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS ABOUT WHETHER THEY...