General Grand Larceny

Published on: January 7, 2012

When a Lie Leads to a Theft Conviction: Establishing Knowledge of Stolen Property at a NY PL 155.30 & NY PL 165.40 Trial

In a previous post, we explained that under New York’s larceny laws, offenses relating to Criminal Possession of Stolen Property require that a prosecutor introduce evidence showing a defendant “knowingly possessed” the stolen property in question. We explained that, given the language of the statute, courts have held that a defendant cannot be convicted for merely possessing stolen property without evidence showing that he or she knew the property was stolen.

To illustrate this point, we examined a case called People v. Nowakowski. In this case, the defendant explained that he had purchased the property in question, but the prosecution was unable to provide any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the defendant knew the property was stolen. Because the prosecution provided no evidence that the defendant knew the property was stolen, the jury could not properly be asked to consider whether he knew it was stolen.

Published on: January 3, 2012

Defining & Understanding “Scientific Material” in a New York Grand Larceny Arrest

By Jeremy Saland

When we think about theft and larceny in New York, it seems reasonable to assume that the dollar value of a stolen item will be more relevant to the crime than the actual item itself. For example, if you are charged with Grand Larceny by Embezzlement, the courts are not concerned with whether you stole $25,000 in cash, credit card advances or treasuries. Similarly, if you are caught shoplifting from Macys or Bloomingdales, it makes no difference whether you stole a dress, skirt, or ten pairs of slacks. What is relevant to the charged of Grand Larceny is the value of the property alleged to have been stolen.??

As any seasoned New York criminal defense attorney will tell you, however, the type of item stolen, rather than the item’s value, can sometimes play a significant role in the charge a defendant faces. ?If the item in question fits within certain categories, a defendant will automatically face a felony charge, regardless of the item’s value. These categories, listed under New York Penal Law 155.30, include: public records, secret scientific material, credit/debit cards, firearms, motor vehicles, and religious items, among others.

Published on: December 31, 2011

Credit & Debit Card Theft, New York Penal Law 155.30(4): Committing A Felony Without Even Realizing

By Jeremy Saland

It “is what it is.” Sadly, I have seen it not only when I served as a New York prosecutor in Robert Morgenthau’s Manhattan District Attorneys Office, but I have seen as a New York criminal lawyer as well. Maybe you stole a purse and didn’t realize there was a credit card inside of it. Instead, you grabbed a backpack that happened to have a debit card in one of the interior pockets. Even if you were merely trying to snag a bag that you knew had $50 or $60 dollars in it, you are now charged with a felony for violating Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree according to New York Penal Law 155.30(4). The unfortunate thing is that you never had the desire to steal that credit card or debit card or even knew it was there.

As a seasoned New York criminal attorney I have watched in recent years as crimes involving credit cards and debit cards have grown throughout the metropolitan New York City area. There are several different charges that can stem from credit card theft or credit card fraud, such as Identity Theft in the First Degree under NY PL 190.80, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree under NY PL 165.45, and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree under NY PL 170.25. However, a very common credit or debit card crime that elevates an otherwise lesser crime into a felony offense is Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree. Previously on our sister blog site (NewYorkCriminaLawyerBlog.Com), as well as our two websites (New-York-Lawyers.org and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com), I extensively examined how Grand Larceny charges are generally broken down by the value of the property alleged to be stolen. In substance, the higher the value of the stolen property the greater the degree of the crime. Following this through, the greater the degree of the crime the longer the possible prison term for a convicted defendant. I won’t regurgitate the full differences here, but it is important to note that if the value of the stolen property is less than $1,000 a criminal will face only Petit Larceny charges pursuant to NY P.L. 155.25, an “A” misdemeanor charge. That is, of course, if your theft does not involve a credit or debit card.

Published on: December 20, 2011

Grand Larceny by Extortion & Blackmail: A Criminal Lawyer’s Examination of “Untraditional” New York Extortion Cases Pursuant to NY P.L. 155.05(e)

By Jeremy Saland

One of the more notable crimes under New York’s many larceny crimes and theft offenses is Grand Larceny by Extortion (often called Blackmail). Most experienced White Collar criminal defense attorneys in New York City, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and the neighboring counties deal with the many faces of Extortion and Blackmail as prosecutors levy charges against their clients. Because of this, Extortion can be defined as quite a broad crime. New York Penal Law 155.05(e) lists a breadth of activities that may constitute Extortion…some of it obvious and much of it not at all. Generally paraphrasing the statute, a person is guilty of Larceny by Extortion when he/she obtains property by instilling a fear that if the property is not given, the “bad guy” will do some act that will harm the property owner in some way. In common parlance, as noted above, it is similar to Blackmail – the property owner is compelled to deliver the property because they are threatened. The statute lists the many forms of harm that may constitute Grand Larceny by Extortion, such as: physical injury, damage to property, accusation of a crime, exposing a secret, causing a strike, testifying or withholding information, abusing a position of power. In other words, any threat to perform an act that will harm the property owner in some way.

One of the keys to understanding Larceny by Extortion is that it shares the same broad definition of property that accompanies the Grand Larceny statutes. Property really will include anything of value. Thus, it is not just the obvious – money – that constitutes property, but also a contract for services, or a right of a tenant to possess and occupy an apartment. One New York criminal case directly on this point of law is People v. Spatarella, 34 NY.2d 157. There, Mr. Spartella was convicted of Grand Larceny by Extortion, in violation of NY Penal Law 155.40. Spartella was the head of a garbage collection company. A competitor had been servicing a restaurant in the area, and the defendant wanted the business. Thus, Spartella threatened the competitor with physical injury and the competitor removed their garbage containers from the restaurant. Without the restaurant owner’s knowledge or consent, Spartella started serving its refuse collection needs. The interesting question of law before the court was whether in this situation, where a customer is stolen through intimidation (rather than the more common extortion situation where money is demanded in return for leaving the business alone), the defendant perpetrated Extortion. The court ruled that this did constitute Extortion. The competitor was deprived of the business relationship and the right to service the restaurant. As the court stated, for Extortion purposes property that can be threatened has consistently “included intangible rights.” Another “untraditional” Extortion case shows further how the statute can be extended to encompass different property. In United States v. Ivezaj, 568 F.3d 88, the defendants challenged their convictions under New York’s Extortion laws claiming that the control over intangible property was not “property” that could be “delivered” pursuant to NY PL 155.05. Interestingly, in this case the property gained by threat was control of an illegal gambling operation. The Court of Appeals here, ruled that not only do intangible goods constitute property under New York law, but the control over an illegal gambling ring is a “thing of value” which is “provided for…compensation.” The court rejected the argument that illegally obtained assets and businesses conducted in violation of the law cannot constitute property. In other words, it did not matter that the “victims” of Extortion had no legal right to operate an illegal gambling business.

Published on: December 16, 2011

Larceny of Common Property: Can You Steal Property that is Jointly Owned?

By Jeremy Saland

As an experienced New York criminal defense attorney serving Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and the surrounding counties such as Westchester, I am routinely confronted with legal question surrounding New York Grand Larceny crimes and other New York larceny laws and theft laws. In today’s blog post I want to address one of the more ‘weird’ legal situations that arises when a joint property owners “steals” commonly owned property from the other party he or she shares ownership.

To avoid confusion at the outset, let’s pause a moment and allow me to share a little Legal Property 101. Under the common law, there are different types of ownership rights one can have in property. Obviously the most basic is full ownership by a single person. However, more than one person may own one piece of property. When referring to land (real property) we usually call this a concurrent estate or co-tenancy. Now, there are different subsets of concurrent estates that vary in different jurisdictions, but their definition and consequences on ownership rights go beyond what we need to know here. For purposes of our discussion, when I refer to “joint” or “common” ownership of property I mean property over which each individual owner has an equal and undivided right of possession in that property. Each owner is entitled to have and use the property. It does not matter if that property is a car, bank account or computer.

Published on: December 7, 2011

Escalating the Degree of a Grand Larceny Crime in New York: When Aggregation Applies to a Theft Crime

By Jeremy Saland

Ask any New York criminal defense attorney who regularly practices in the criminal court of our state. Not all thefts are created equal. The New York Penal Law breaks down Larceny into distinct degrees, ranging from Petit Larceny to Grand Larceny (NY P.L. 155.25, 155.30, 155.35, 155.40, 155.42). Prosecutors in New York City, the neighboring boroughs, and in the surrounding counties of Westchester and Rockland, will designate the proper Larceny charge based on an estimate of the value of the property that has allegedly been stolen. Many times part of being an effective White-Collar Criminal defense lawyer is getting the charges against your client reduced (so that your client can face potentially less, little, or no prison time) especially if the evidence is too stacked against your client for an acquittal. Conversely, just as criminal defense lawyers attempt to reduce charges, prosecutors will try to increase the degree of an offense. One such tool prosecutors utilize to aid in this effort is aggregation. Instead of charging an accused defendant thief with multiple lesser larceny charges, they may be able to add up the value of the total property stolen from several different thefts. So if a person commits six separate thefts of $501 each, instead of charging the thief with six separate counts of Petit Larceny (a misdemeanor) the prosecution may be able to charge the thief with Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (a class D felony). What was once punishable by at most up to a year in jail is now punishable by up to two and one-third to seven years in state prison. Obviously, the difference is enormous.

Aggregation is not applicable in all instances involving multiple thefts. Generally, aggregation is permissible where separate acts of theft are from the same owner if the successive thefts are pursuant to a single sustained criminal scheme. An examination of the pertinent New York case law helps “flesh out” aggregation. The seminal New York case on aggregation, People v. Cox, 286 N.Y. 137, established the aggregation principle (the case dates back to 1941 so the monetary values are different, but the legal principles holds true). The case centered on a defendant who was a turnstile maintainer in the subway system. Over a two-year period he stole batches of nickels, about $25 at a time, from the subway system. However, in aggregate the nickels totaled about $2,000 dollars. Cox argued that because his theft occurred over a period of time and at no one time exceeded the sum of $100 he was guilty of numerous Petit Larceny crimes rather than one Grand Larceny (the ceiling for petit larceny then was $100). The court ruled that the evidence showed that the “entire taking was governed by a single intent and a general illegal design.” The length of period over which the thefts occurred was irrelevant. Thus, Cox was convicted as a felon (Grand Larceny) not the misdemeanor.

Published on: November 5, 2011

Have Questions About New York Theft Laws & Larceny Crimes: NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com

By Jeremy Saland

New York criminal lawyers Elizabeth Crotty and Jeremy Saland are pleased to share their newest online resource for NY theft crimes and larceny laws. The NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com, along with its “sister” website, NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com, is a resource with practical information on white collar theft offenses and larceny crimes in New York State. Not drafted by website designers or marketing professionals, the information contained in these two sites is all original work product created and maintained by lawyers. In fact, both Elizabeth Crotty and Jeremy Saland have practiced law since 2000 when they began serving together as Assistant District Attorneys in Robert Morgenthau’s Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. After serving as prosecutors for six and seven years respectively, followed by boutique civil litigation and criminal defense experience, our New York criminal lawyers started their own law firm dedicated to criminal defense in 2008. Since then, our criminal attorneys have successfully defended clients throughout New York City and the region.

Not created as a substitute for legal counsel (nothing read in any blog entry or webpage should be construed as advice), both the website and blog are viable means to start your education on theft and larceny crimes while also giving you the knowledge to have an informed conversation with your attorney. Moreover, the content will also help those unfamiliar with criminal law to see the practical application of criminal statutes in New York courts. Because the materials address crimes, current and historical court decisions and cases covered by news agencies in the New York City market, the website and blog are all valuable tools if you are a target of a criminal investigation or a defendant in an arrest.