Value Based Grand Larceny

Published on: April 4, 2012

Stealing Worthless Property in New York: Have You Committed a Crime?

A very simple (yes, very simple) way to examine or understand New York’s theft and larceny laws is to look at value of property that is alleged to have been stolen. If you steal property in excess of $1,000, then your arrest would be for a felony Grand Larceny. If value is less than this amount, then your arrest would be for a misdemeanor Petit Larceny. While I have drafted numerous entries addressing the importance of value in a New York larceny arrest as well as how that value is ascertained by New York courts, there are some questions outstanding. Is it possible to be convicted of either Grand Larceny or Petit Larceny where there is no value? The answer to this question is “yes.”

A legal decision that is directly on point and addresses this issue is People v. Freeman, 148 A.D.2d 467 (2nd Dept. 1989). There, a Brooklyn (Kings County) jury convicted the defendant at trial for “Grand Larceny from the Person” as codified in New York Penal Law 155.30(5). The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt in that case that Freeman stole a purse from a woman. The purse contained pieces of torn currency. Although the court denied the request of the criminal defense attorney, the defense lawyer asked that the jury be charged with the lesser offense of Attempted Grand Larceny under the theory that the property ultimately taken – pieces of torn currency – had no value.

Published on: March 8, 2012

Valuing Goods in a New York Grand Larceny & Stolen Property Case III: Assigning Value in an Illegitimate or “Free” Market

By Jeremy Saland

In this series of blogs we have been examining how the New York Criminal Courts determine the value of the allegedly stolen property at issue in a felony New York Criminal Possession of Stolen Property case or a New York Grand Larceny case. As New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors with significant experience in white collar and other larceny crimes throughout New York City, the surrounding boroughs and Westchseter, we understand how important it is to place an accurate value on stolen property. Prosecutors aim to give the highest value to property, because the higher the value the higher the degree of Grand Larceny charged; and of course, the higher the degree- say Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY PL 155.40) versus Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35)- the higher the potential punishment. In this final entry in this series on larceny and value, we want to examine how the NY criminal courts value property that has no real price on any legitimate market. For instance, what do courts do when the stolen property is a controlled substance? That’s right, what if someone steals your drugs (or something less “bad” too)!

The general standard in approaching this issue in a Criminal Possession of Stolen Property and Grand Larceny case is where the property in issue has no market value in the legitimate market, the market value in the illegitimate market may be used in determining the value. In other words, courts will look to the black market or ‘street price’ of the property. In truth, this is consistent with the original principle we discussed in the first blog of this series: “value” means the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime. It’s just that in the case of contraband, the market happens to be a potentially illegal or illegitimate one.

Published on: February 27, 2012

Valuing Stolen Property in a NY Grand Larceny Case Part II: Used Goods & Property

By Jeremy Saland

In a previous blog entry I began a series in which we tackled the important and sometimes complicated issue of determining the value of stolen goods in a New York Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property criminal trial. Charges of Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property based on the value of the alleged “ill gotten gains” can come in many different forms, throughout the boroughs of New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn Bronx and Queens) as well as in the suburban counties (like Rockland and Westchester). That is, “property” is an all-inclusive title, which encompasses any good that has a value- a television, credit card, clothing or even a utility. For New York criminal defense attorneys and their clients, successfully challenging the value of property can make the difference between Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (NY P.L. 155.30), Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY P.L. 155.35), Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY P.L. 155.40) and Grand Larceny in the First Degree (NY P.L. 155.42). If the circumstance is right, it can also make the difference between being charged with a felony or a misdemeanor crime.

In the first entry of this series helping non-criminal lawyers understand “value,” we laid out the general rule that “value” means the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime. In this blog entry, I’d like to discuss how the courts determine the value of used goods, which tend to have a less clearly defined market value than newer property. Pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.20(1), in a Grand Larceny trial where the market value of the stolen property cannot be determined, the “replacement cost” of the property may be used to ascertain the value. For instance, in People v. Vientos, 79 N.Y.2d 771 (1991), the defendants were apprehended by the police while in possession of stolen computer equipment. What complicated the matter was that the brand (Commodore) of computer equipment in question had no resale market value (1984 is calling and they want their Commodore 64 back!). The parts were used and were no longer being sold in any stores. So how did the prosecution value the goods? At trial an expert testified as to the cost it would take to replace the stolen computer equipment. The “replacement cost” would be what it took for the victim to have a whole computer product again. The court went on to say that the prosecution did not have to show that there was a value on the black market for the equipment (i.e. what you could resell the parts for illegally). The expert’s alternative method of valuation was valid because he opined as to the replacement cost.

Published on: February 18, 2012

The Significance of Value in a Theft & Larceny Arrest: Understanding Market Value Part I

By Jeremy Saland

As a New York criminal defense attorney with extensive experience both representing those accused of white collar theft crimes as well as prosecuting and investigating the same, I fully understand that nobody ever wants to face a larceny charge. Frankly, it does not take a legal degree to understand that. It merely takes common sense. Nonetheless, if there is not strong factual or legal basis to obtain a dismissal or acquittal in a Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property arrest, we must sometimes face the reality that a conviction is a strong possibility. Thus, it is important to remember that different degrees of Grand Larceny carry different potential punishments- some severe, some “manageable.” Whether you are charged with larceny in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Westchester County or anywhere else in the New York City area, one of the main elements that most often determine the degree of the theft crime – under New York’s Penal Law Article 155 and New York Penal Law Article 165 – is the value of the allegedly stolen property.

For instance, a defendant who stole property worth more than $3,000, but $50,000 or less, may be convicted of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.35. Here, a defendant would face up to seven years in state prison. Alternatively, a theft in excess of $1,000, but $3,000 or less, would result in a conviction for New York Penal Law 155.30, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, a class “E” felony. NY PL 155.30 carries a maximum sentence of four years in state prison. Continuing with the downgrading of charges, a defendant who stole property worth $1,000 or less would be convicted of New York Penal Law 155.25, Petit Larceny, a class “A” misdemeanor. This crime carries a maximum sentence of one year in jail.

Published on: February 12, 2012

The Value of Stolen Property in a New York Grand Larceny Case: The Changing Value of Property Over Time

By Jeremy Saland

In the overwhelming amount of New York Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property criminal cases, the value of the property stolen will play a significant role in the defendant’s charge. Under New York Penal Law 165.45, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree, it is a Class E felony to knowingly possess stolen property with a value in excess of $1,000. Under New York Penal Law 155.30, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, it is a Class E felony to steal property with a value in excess of $1,000. In both instances, the seriousness of the offense hinges upon the value of the property in question. In fact, as noted above and with just a few limited exceptions, the dollar value of stolen property will be the determining factor in the seriousness of most larceny-related offenses.

The value of property, however, is not always static. Imagine, for instance, a thief that robs a jewelry store (keep in mind this may also be a crime of Burglary, but that offense and its elements will not be discussed in this entry). When the thief commits the crime, he or she steals a bracelet made of one ounce of gold. At the time of the theft, gold is valued at $800 an ounce. Several months later, the thief sells the bracelet to a fence. When the fence receives the bracelet, gold is valued at $1,100 an ounce. Eventually, police discover that the fence is in possession of the stolen piece of jewelry. When the discovery is made, gold is valued at $900 an ounce. Some time later, prosecutors wish to finally charge the suspects based upon their actions. At the time when this occurs, gold is valued at $1,500 an ounce. Obviously, the legal issue or questions is clear. How is the value of property determined and when is that determination made?

Published on: January 23, 2012

DA Vance: Crowell & Moring Attorney Stole in Excess of $7 Million from Firm’s Real Estate Client

By Jeremy Saland

It appears that District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. has bagged himself a trophy sized defendant. According to Manhattan prosecutors, former Crowell & Moring attorney, Douglas Arntsen, stole $7 million from clients during part of his tenure in the New York City office of the global law firm. Not yet indicted by a Grand Jury, Arntsen is charged with three separate offenses. Although capable of charging significantly more crimes to a Grand Jury, prosecutors arrested Arntsen for “only” two counts of Grand Larceny in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 155.42) and one count of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 190.65). A “B” felony that carries a sentence of up to eight and one third to twenty five years in prison as well as a minimum term of one to three years incarceration, Arntsen is facing the most severe or significant white collar crime in terms of degree and potential consequences. While merely an “E” felony, a conviction for Scheme to Defraud still carries a potential state prison sentence of up to four years.

According to Team Vance, Arntsen’s scheme was fairly simple and straight forward. That is, it is alleged that the Crowell & Moring attorney serviced a client, Regal Real Estate LLC, while also servicing himself. It is claimed that Arntsen, who worked at Crowell & Moring for approximately four years, assisted Regal Real Estate LLC in most, if not all, of its real estate transactions. Beginning sometime in April 2010, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office believes that Arntsen began moving funds associated with a client escrow account into his own personal bank account. These monies related to the sale of Regal Real Estate LLC’s properties. At some point, the law firm recognized the discrepencies in accounting and potential criminal fraud. As a result, Crowell & Moring terminated Arntsen and contact the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Likely recognizing what was in store, Arntsen is alleged to have fled to Hong Kong where he was in custody before returning to the United States with the assistance of federal authorities.

Published on: January 15, 2012

Adding Up Stolen Property from Multiple Victims: New York Criminal Possession of Stolen Property & Aggregation Law

By Jeremy Saland

In a previous entry, we discussed how the value of stolen property frequently effects the seriousness of the charge that a defendant will face in a New York larceny, theft or stolen property arrest. In this entry, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Saland Law PC will elaborate on that topic, discussing how the value of multiple pieces of stolen property can impact the degree of Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property a defendant will face. Under New York Penal Law 165.45, it is a Class E felony for a person to knowingly possess stolen property valued more than $1000, but not greater than $3,000. Further, this possession must include an intent to benefit himself or a person other than the owner. If the defendant possesses stolen property valued at less than $1,000, he or she will likely be charged with a misdemeanor of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (New York Penal Law 165.40). If the value of the property is greater than $1,000, however, the charge can escalate to a number of potential felonies beyond the Fourth Degree. The language of this statute raises an extremely valid question: if the defendant possesses numerous pieces of stolen property belonging to multiple owners, can the total value of the property be used to support a single charge, or must the value of each be used to support separate charges, based upon individual owners?

Although seemingly insignificant, your criminal lawyer will explain that knowing the answer to this question can sometimes prove relevant to your case. Imagine a circumstance where prosecutors allege that a defendant is acting as a “fence,” a person in the business of buying stolen property. This defendant is alleged to be in possession of several stolen items: a television valued at $300, a bicycle valued at $600, and a laptop valued at $500. Each piece of property belongs to a different owner. If prosecutors base their charge upon the total value of the items in the defendant’s possession, the value of the stolen property is in excess of $1,000 and the defendant will face a felony. If the language of the statute requires, however, that the charges be separated by individual owners of the property, the defendant possesses three items worth less than $1,000. As such, he or she will only be charged with three misdemeanors. Addressing this exact issue, the court in People v. Loret 136 A.D.2d 316 (4th Dept. 1988) considered whether prosecutors may aggregate the value of stolen property or if each charge must be based upon the property’s individual owner.

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.