New York Law Review

Tag: Ownership

  • People v. Nappo, 94 N.Y.2d 564 (2000): Larceny Requires Withholding Property From Its Rightful Owner

    People v. Nappo, 94 N.Y.2d 564 (2000)

    The State of New York is not an “owner” of uncollected motor fuel taxes under the Penal Law; thus, failure to pay such taxes does not constitute larceny from the state.

    Summary

    Defendants were indicted for enterprise corruption, conspiracy, and grand larceny for importing motor fuel from New Jersey to New York without paying required motor fuel taxes. The prosecution argued that failing to pay these taxes constituted larceny of state property. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s reinstatement of the larceny and conspiracy charges, holding that the State was not the “owner” of the uncollected taxes under the Penal Law. The court distinguished between failing to pay taxes due and failing to remit sales taxes collected from consumers, the latter of which involves holding funds in trust for the state. Because the defendants’ tax liability did not depend on collecting taxes from consumers and they held no funds in trust for the state, their failure to pay did not constitute larceny.

    Facts

    The defendants, William S. Nappo, William K. Nappo, and John Rocco, were accused of importing motor fuel from New Jersey into New York without filing the necessary reports or paying the required motor fuel taxes, as mandated by New York Tax Law.

    Procedural History

    The defendants were indicted in County Court on multiple charges, including enterprise corruption, conspiracy in the fourth degree, and grand larceny in the first degree. The County Court dismissed the first three counts of the indictment (enterprise corruption, conspiracy, and grand larceny), with leave to resubmit. The Appellate Division reversed the County Court’s decision and reinstated the larceny and conspiracy charges, finding sufficient evidence that the defendants withheld property from the State of New York. The New York Court of Appeals granted the defendants leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendants’ failure to pay taxes on motor fuel imported from New Jersey to New York constitutes larceny from New York State, based on the theory that New York was the owner of the unpaid taxes?

    Holding

    No, because the State of New York is not an “owner” of taxes required to be paid for the importation and distribution of motor fuel, as defined by the Penal Law. The taxes due were not the property of the State prior to their remittance; therefore, the defendants did not steal money belonging to New York State but rather failed to make payments of taxes which were their personal obligations under the Tax Law.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that larceny, as defined in Penal Law § 155.05 (1), involves stealing property by taking, obtaining, or withholding it from an owner. An owner is defined as any person with a right to possession superior to that of the taker, obtainer, or withholder (Penal Law § 155.00 [5]). The court distinguished this case from situations where a party holds funds in trust for the State, such as collected sales taxes. In those instances, failure to remit collected sales taxes constitutes larceny because the State is deemed the “owner” of those funds. In this case, the defendants’ tax liability arose from the importation and distribution of motor fuel and did not depend on collecting taxes from consumers. The court cited prior cases such as People v Jennings, People v Yannett and People v Wilson to illustrate instances where a defendant was not in possession of monies owned by the alleged victim. The court explicitly stated, “[D]efendants were not in possession, by trust or otherwise, of monies owned by the State.” The court acknowledged Tax Law § 1817 (k), which overruled the result in People v Valenza, but clarified that this law only authorizes prosecution under the Penal Law for failing to remit sales taxes that have been collected from consumers, and is not applicable in this case. The court emphasized that “[a] seller who collects sales taxes holds money in trust for the State (Tax Law § 1817 [k]).” Because the defendants did not collect taxes from consumers or hold funds in trust, their failure to pay motor fuel taxes did not constitute larceny from the State.

  • People v. Zinke, 89 N.Y.2d 243 (1996): Defining ‘Owner’ in Robbery and Larceny Cases

    People v. Zinke, 89 N.Y.2d 243 (1996)

    In robbery and larceny cases, the term “owner” refers to someone with a possessory right to the property superior to that of the taker, but does not automatically extend to anyone who attempts to prevent a theft without having a pre-existing claim or custodial duty regarding the property.

    Summary

    Zinke was convicted of robbery and petit larceny for forcibly stealing boots from a mall security guard (Davis), who the indictment identified as the “owner.” The boots were stolen from a store unaffiliated with the mall. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the robbery and petit larceny convictions, holding that Davis was not the “owner” of the boots because he did not have a possessory right superior to Zinke’s. The Court emphasized that merely attempting to stop a theft does not automatically create ownership rights in the stolen property.

    Facts

    Zinke and an accomplice stole a carton of Timberland boots from Mr. Lee’s Men’s Shop. They carried the boots into the nearby Gertz Mall. Frank Davis, a mall security guard, saw Zinke and his accomplice with the box of boots and stopped them. Zinke claimed the box was theirs but couldn’t produce a receipt. Zinke and his accomplice started transferring the boots to a bag. Davis radioed for assistance and tried to stop them from leaving. Zinke displayed a box cutter and threatened Davis. Zinke and his accomplice ran from the mall but were later apprehended by police officers.

    Procedural History

    Zinke was charged with first-degree robbery, petit larceny, and menacing. At trial, Zinke moved to dismiss the robbery and larceny charges, arguing that Davis was not the owner of the boots. The trial court denied the motion, and Zinke was convicted. The Appellate Division reversed the robbery and petit larceny convictions, finding that the People failed to prove that Davis had a right of possession superior to Zinke’s. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a mall security guard who attempts to stop a suspected theft of property from a store unaffiliated with the mall qualifies as an “owner” of the property for purposes of robbery and larceny statutes, based solely on his attempt to prevent the theft.

    Holding

    1. No, because the security guard did not have a possessory right to the boots superior to that of the defendant.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that robbery and larceny require a taking of property “from an owner thereof,” and ownership includes anyone with a right to possession superior to that of the taker. However, the Court rejected the trial court’s reasoning that a thief’s lack of ownership automatically makes anyone who tries to stop them an owner. The Court distinguished the case from prior holdings, noting that here, no special relationship or prior possessory interest existed between the security guard and the stolen boots. The guard’s actions, without more, did not create a superior right of possession. Relying on Foulke v. New York Consol. R. R. Co., the People argued that Davis was a gratuitous bailee, but the Court stated that the passenger/common carrier relationship was crucial to the creation of the bailment. In the present case, there was no relationship between the true owner and the security guard that could have given rise to a duty on the guard’s behalf to become a bailee of the property. The court further reasoned that “[l]abeling the security guard an owner would expand the crime of robbery beyond the definitional limits imposed by the common law and the Legislature.”