People v. Graves, 19 N.Y.3d 253 (2012)
The unauthorized swipe of an unlimited MetroCard for a fee, while a criminal act, does not constitute larceny because the transit authority was never the owner of the funds paid to the defendant.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reversed a petit larceny conviction, holding that an individual who swiped an unlimited MetroCard for others in exchange for money did not commit larceny. The court reasoned that the money received by the defendant never belonged to the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), and therefore, there was no deprivation of property as required for a larceny conviction. While the defendant’s actions were illegal under other statutes, the specific charge of petit larceny was not supported by the facts presented in the misdemeanor information.
Facts
A police officer observed the defendant swiping an unlimited MetroCard at a subway turnstile. Instead of entering the subway himself, the defendant allowed another person to enter and accepted an unknown sum of money in return. The officer recovered the MetroCard, which was confirmed to be an unlimited ride card by swiping it through an NYCTA reader. The defendant did not enter the subway himself.
Procedural History
The defendant was charged with petit larceny, unauthorized sale of transportation services, and illegal access to Transit Authority services. He pleaded guilty to petit larceny to satisfy all charges and was convicted. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s act of swiping an unlimited MetroCard for a fee, allowing another person access to the subway system, constitutes larceny, specifically depriving the NYCTA of property.
Holding
No, because the NYCTA was not deprived of its property. The money defendant received from the subway rider never belonged to the NYCTA, thus lacking the element of depriving another of their property required for larceny.
Court’s Reasoning
The court focused on the elements of larceny, particularly whether the defendant wrongfully took property from an owner. The court reasoned that the money the defendant received never belonged to the NYCTA. Quoting People v. Nappo, 94 N.Y.2d 564 (2000), the court emphasized that uncollected taxes (or in this case, potential fares) are not the property of the state (or the NYCTA) prior to their remittance or collection. “Defendant[ ] w[as] not in possession, by trust or otherwise, of monies owned by the [NYCTA].” The court distinguished this case from People v. Spatarella, 34 N.Y.2d 157 (1974), where extortion to take a portion of someone’s business was considered larceny, noting that in this case, the NYCTA voluntarily transferred the valid MetroCard in the ordinary course of business. The court pointed out that the defendant was charged with petit larceny, not the general theft of services statute, and thus, its analysis was confined to the larceny charge.