People v. Robinson

Decision Date17 December 1982
Citation90 A.D.2d 249,457 N.Y.S.2d 347
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hurley ROBINSON, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender, Rochester, for appellant (Peter Braun, Buffalo, of counsel).

Hon. Donald O. Chesworth, Jr., Dist. Atty., Rochester, for respondent (Kenneth Fisher, Rochester, of counsel).

Before DILLON P.J., and DOERR, DENMAN, MOULE and SCHNEPP, JJ.

SCHNEPP, Justice.

We pass on the question whether the removal of an integral part from a stolen object constitutes larceny of the part. Defendant was indicted for, and convicted of, the crime of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law, §§ 20.00 and 155.30, subd. 1) because of his involvement in the theft of the tires and wheels from a new 1977 Lincoln Continental.

The People presented testimony at trial that on May 31, 1977 the car was discovered missing from the premises of its owner, Volpe Motors, an automobile dealer at 737 East Main Street, Rochester, New York. When it was last observed there at 9:00 p.m. on May 30, 1977, it was equipped with five Michelin steel-belted radial tires and standard wheels with a value of at least $750. Later in the day on May 31, the vehicle, with its tires and wheels removed, was found on the Wilson Boulevard extension in Genesee Valley Park near the railroad tracks some distance from the dealer's place of business. The defendant, who was implicated in the theft by his fingerprints which were found on the "fender skirts", denied to the police that he had taken part in the theft but admitted that, knowing the car had been stolen, he had assisted two friends in the removal of the wheels and tires from the car.

On this appeal defendant claims that there is no evidence connecting him with the theft of the car and that his subsequent contact with the tires and wheels does not constitute grand larceny. We agree that the evidence was insufficient to connect defendant with the theft of the car and to establish the elements of larceny as defined by the Penal Law.

Larceny occurs when a person, who has the intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, exercises dominion and control over it in a manner which is wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner (see Penal Law, § 155.05; see, also, People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 438 N.Y.S.2d 242, 420 N.E.2d 40; People v. Alamo, 34 N.Y.2d 453, 358 N.Y.S.2d 375, 315 N.E.2d 446). Larcenous behavior is evinced under the facts here by the taking of the car from its rightful owner. There is no question that the possession of the entire vehicle after it was removed from Volpe's premises must be deemed an exercise of dominion and control inconsistent with the owner's continued rights, and that as a matter of law, these circumstances establish a taking. Thus, it is apparent that the larceny of the car, and hence its tires and wheels, was accomplished and complete when the car was removed from the premises.

The only evidence supporting the People's contention that defendant was an accomplice to the commission of the theft was circumstantial, consisting of defendant's admission that he assisted his friends in removing the tires and wheels from the stolen car. Section 20.00 of the Penal Law makes any person "criminally liable" for an offense committed by another "when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he ... intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct." A person is not an accomplice "merely on the basis that, in retrospect, we may say that in an objective sense this person was helpful or of use to the actual perpetrator of the crime. There is a subjective element as well.... 'An aider and abettor must share the intent or purpose of the principal actor, and there can be no partnership in an act where there is no community of purpose.' (citation omitted)" (People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405, 412, 276 N.Y.S.2d 105, 222 N.E.2d 727, construing analogous provisions of section 2 of Former Penal Law; see, also, People v. Monaco, 14 N.Y.2d 43, 46, 248 N.Y.S.2d 41, 197 N.E.2d 532.)

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Rodriguez v. Scully
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 9, 1986
    ...took property from its owners with intent to deprive them of it. N.Y. Penal Law Secs. 155.05, 160.15; see People v. Robinson, 90 A.D.2d 249, 250, 457 N.Y.S.2d 347 (1982), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 982, 471 N.Y.S.2d 258, 459 N.E.2d 483 (1983). The State clearly met this burden when it proved that Rod......
  • People v. McDonald
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 3, 2019
    ...intent (see People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405, 411–412, 276 N.Y.S.2d 105, 222 N.E.2d 727 [1966] ; see also People v. Robinson, 90 A.D.2d 249, 251, 457 N.Y.S.2d 347 [4th Dept. 1982], affd 60 N.Y.2d 982, 471 N.Y.S.2d 258, 459 N.E.2d 483 [1983] ). "An aider and abettor must share the intent or......
  • People v. Evans
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 30, 2016
    ...v. DeNormand, 1 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 767 N.Y.S.2d 380, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 626, 777 N.Y.S.2d 25, 808 N.E.2d 1284 ; cf. People v. Robinson, 90 A.D.2d 249, 250–251, 457 N.Y.S.2d 347, affd. 60 N.Y.2d 982, 471 N.Y.S.2d 258, 459 N.E.2d 483 ; see generally People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 420–422, 6......
  • People v. Robinson
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 1983

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT