You are here: / / Failure to Prove Defendant Did Not Have a Good Faith Belief He Had a Claim...
,

Failure to Prove Defendant Did Not Have a Good Faith Belief He Had a Claim of Right to Property Precluded Larceny Conviction

The Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence to support a grand larceny charge based upon the defendant’s taking a jeep from his girlfriend’s residence.  Prior to defendant’s taking the jeep, his girlfriend had agreed to transfer it to him—an offer she subsequently told defendant was “off:” The Fourth Department held the People had not proven the defendant did not have a good faith belief that he had a claim of right to the jeep:

It is well established that “a good faith claim of right is properly a defense—not an affirmative defense—and thus, ‘the people have the burden of disproving such defense beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” … .A defendant is not required to “establish that he previously owned or possessed the property at issue in order to assert the claim of right defense” …. The test is whether a defendant had a “subjective[,] good faith” belief that he or she had a claim of right to the relevant property, not whether defendant’s belief was reasonable … . Based on the testimony of defendant’s former girlfriend, which is the only evidence that relates to the claim of right issue, we conclude that it was unreasonable for the jury to conclude that the People established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not have a subjective, good faith basis for believing that the Jeep was his, and thus the verdict with respect to the grand larceny in the fourth degree count is against the weight of the evidence ….  People v Rios, 223, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

You might also like
THERE WAS AN “UNWARNED” THREE-FOOT DROP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A DOOR IN A REMOTE AREA OF THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF, A HOSPITAL WORKER, WAS INJURED BY THE THREE-FOOT DROP; THE ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND NO DUTY WAS OWED TO THE PLAINTIFF; THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE ARCHITECT’S SPECIFICATIONS AND COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH DEPT).
Under the Unambiguous Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Plaintiff, a Retiree Who Was No Longer a Union Member, Was Not Subject to the Grievance-Filing Requirement and Could Sue Directly
FORMER AND CURRENT SECTION 413 OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW REQUIRES THE REPORTING OF ANY SUSPECTED INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY UPON A CHILD, WHICH INCLUDES SEXUAL ABUSE, EVEN WHEN THE PERSON SUSPECTED OF THE ABUSE IS NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN UNGUARDED, UNILLUMINATED SEAWALL AT THE BACK OF DEFENDANTS’ YARD CONSTITUTED AN ACTIONABLE DANGEROUS CONDITION; PLAINTIFF, AT NIGHT, FELL OVER THE WALL DOWN TO THE BEACH BELOW (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “DANGER INVITES RESCUE” DOCTRINE APPLIED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY HURT HER BACK TRYING TO PREVENT A PATIENT FROM FALLING WHEN DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE IMPROPERLY USED A HOYER LIFT TO TRANSFER THE PATIENT FROM A WHEEL CHAIR TO A BED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION RELIED ON EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT AN ACTION FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT BY SUMMONS IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 (FOURTH DEPT),
BANK WHICH PURPORTEDLY ACCELERATED THE DEBT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO DO SO, PLAINTIFF BANK ENTITLED ONLY TO THE UNPAID INSTALLMENTS WHICH ACCRUED DURING THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE ACTION (FOURTH 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

Undue Influence Criteria Explained Conviction Reversed Because Uncharged Theory Considered by Jury