People v. Crego, 297 N.Y.S.2d 443 (N.Y. 1969)
The market value of stolen property, for purposes of determining the degree of larceny, is the price a willing buyer would pay at the time and place of the theft, considering factors such as condition, use, and any damage incurred.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny for stealing a water pump. The key issue on appeal was whether the prosecution adequately proved the pump’s value exceeded $100, the threshold for grand larceny. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court failed to properly determine the market value of the pump at the time of the theft. The court emphasized that the pump’s value should reflect its condition after attempted installation and any resulting damage, not simply its original purchase price.
Facts
Lloyd Crego purchased a water pump for $124 from J & R Plumbing. His son-in-law, Terpening, an employee of the plumbing company, along with Crego’s son, began installing the pump. During the installation, they bent the copper tubing, damaged the gauge, and nicked the pump. The installation was abandoned, and the pump was left uninstalled. The following day, the pump was discovered missing. The defendant was later apprehended and convicted of grand larceny.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the second degree. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to adequately prove the value of the stolen pump exceeded $100. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish that the market value of the stolen water pump exceeded $100 at the time of the theft, considering its condition and any damage incurred during a failed installation attempt.
Holding
No, because the prosecution failed to adequately account for the pump’s condition and any damage incurred during the attempted installation when determining its value at the time of the theft. The original purchase price was insufficient to establish market value under these circumstances.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that, per People v. Irrizari, the relevant measure of value in a larceny case is the market value of the stolen item at the time of the theft – what the thief would have to pay to replace the item in the marketplace. The court reasoned that the original purchase price is merely some evidence of value, but not conclusive, especially when the item’s condition has changed after the sale. The court noted that the pump had been subjected to a botched installation attempt, resulting in damage. Justice Burke stated, “Since we stated in Irrizari that the price for which an item is sold in a particular store is some evidence but not conclusive proof of its value when stolen from that store, it necessarily follows that the original cost of an item is not proof of its value some five days after the goods have left the store.” Furthermore, the court referenced Parmenter v. Fitzpatrick and People v. Liquori in asserting that an allowance must be made for the fact that the pump, when taken, was no longer new. The court criticized the prosecution’s expert witness for failing to assess the pump’s value after the attempted installation and damage, noting the witness admitted he didn’t know the condition of the pump at the time it was stolen. The court concluded that because the pump’s value was crucial in determining the degree of the offense, the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered to properly assess the pump’s market value at the time of the theft.