| People v Lowin |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01711 [71 AD3d 1194] |
| March 4, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sarah J.Lowin, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, Owego (Adam R. Schumacher of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.),rendered June 16, 2008, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crimes of grandlarceny in the fourth degree (two counts) and making a punishable false written statement.
The charges against defendant stem from her admitted removal of two vehicles fromproperty she leased to her stepdaughter, Jessica Lowin, and Lowin's boyfriend, Alfred Isbell Jr.,after they moved out. It was undisputed that Lowin and Isbell had been paying defendant weeklyrent to live in a trailer[FN1]for about six months, on property also containing the house where defendant resided, which waslocated in the Town of Barton, Tioga County. During that time, the battery died on a 1995Oldsmobile sedan owned by Lowin; she removed the car's plates, cancelled the insurance andleft the car for several months in the yard beside the trailer. Isbell had borrowed a 1991 Fordpickup truck from his grandfather, promising to pay him for it; after the engine burned out andthe transmission shaft broke, he removed the engine and left the truck in the yard for at leastseveral months. After a series of disagreements with defendant, Lowin and Isbell moved out onJuly 1, 2007 and had no further contact with defendant until Lowin [*2]returned on July 16, 2007 and discovered that the two vehicles theyhad left behind were missing.
State Police were contacted the next day, and defendant falsely reported to Trooper RandySmith that she did not know where the subject vehicles were. After contacting area tow truckcompanies, Smith learned that a tow truck operator, Brian Smith (who was also a neighbor todefendant), had towed the vehicles at defendant's request to a scrap metal yard run by HermanRathke in the Town of Owego, Tioga County. Trooper Smith went to defendant's home on July26, 2007 and took a written statement from her in which she indicated—under penalty ofperjury—that the vehicles disappeared on July 10, 2007 while she was away from theproperty, and she did not know who took them. It was subsequently established at trial thatdefendant had arranged in early July to have Brian Smith tow the vehicles off of her property toRathke's scrap yard, where Lowin's car had been shredded. The truck was still at the scrapyard.[FN2]
Indicted on two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree for stealing the vehicles andmaking a punishable false written statement related to her statement to the trooper, defendanttestified that she believed the vehicles had been abandoned by the tenants and that she had aright to have them removed from the property. While defendant testified that she received nomoney for the vehicles, Brian Smith testified that defendant paid him $150 to tow both vehiclesand he gave defendant the $400 paid by Rathke for the vehicles. Defendant was convicted on allcharges following a nonjury trial. She was sentenced to a three-year conditional discharge andrequired to pay restitution of $400. She now appeals.
Initially, County Court correctly denied defendant's motion, following a Huntleyhearing, to suppress her statement to Trooper Smith, rejecting her contentions that it wasinvoluntary or the product of a custodial interrogation. Trooper Smith's unrefuted testimonyestablished that he drove his marked police vehicle to defendant's home during the afternoon, shecame outside and agreed to give a written account; sitting in the front of the police vehicle, thetrooper asked defendant a few questions, recording her answers in a written statement thatdefendant signed after it was read to her. No promises or threats were made during this brief time(about 19 minutes), defendant was not handcuffed, and she did not request to leave or ask for anattorney. A reasonable person in defendant's position would have believed that she or he was freeto leave and, thus, the questioning was not custodial and Miranda warnings were notrequired (see People v Paulman, 5NY3d 122, 129 [2005]; People v Harris, 48 NY2d 208, 215 [1979]; see alsoPeople v Centano, 76 NY2d 837, 838 [1990]). Further, the record reflects that the Peopleproved the voluntariness of defendant's statement beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Baggett, 57 AD3d1093, 1094 [2008]). There was nothing coercive, accusatory or confrontational about thequestioning or the setting (see People vBarton, 13 AD3d 721, 722 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 785 [2005]; People vMarx, 305 AD2d 726, 727 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 596 [2003]).
We are also unpersuaded by defendant's challenge to the larceny convictions as unsupportedby legally insufficient evidence or against the weight of credible evidence. [*3]Defendant contends that the evidence established that the tenantshad vacated the trailer and abandoned their inoperable junk vehicles on the rental propertywithout ever indicating to her that they intended to return for them, and she reasonably believedthat she had a right to dispose of them and did not harbor larcenous intent. Viewing the evidencein the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every favorable inference(see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find that legally sufficientevidence was adduced to establish that, acting with the intent to deprive the vehicle owners oftheir property or to appropriate it for her own use (see Penal Law § 155.05 [1];§ 155.00 [3], [4]), defendant wrongfully sold, i.e., stole, those motor vehicles,[FN3]each of which exceeded the $100 value threshold (see Penal Law § 155.30 [8];see also People v Jensen, 86 NY2d 248, 252 [1995]; People v Merante, 59 AD3d 207, 208 [2009], lv denied 12NY3d 856 [2009]). The evidence satisfied all of the elements of larceny.
The factfinder expressly discredited defendant's testimony that she believed the vehicles hadbeen abandoned[FN4]and that she had a right to sell them (see Penal Law § 155.15 [defense of claim ofright]), reasoning that if she believed she had acted lawfully, she would not have lied topolice—about not knowing what happened to the vehicles—in order to protect thetow truck driver (as she testified). Examining the evidence further, while a different verdictwould not have been unreasonable (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495), we aresatisfied that the verdict is supported by the weight of the credible evidence. While the tenantsdid not effectively communicate to defendant their intent to return for the vehicles,[FN5]her sale of them within approximately one week of their vacancy, her false statement to police,and her denial of receiving payment for them (which was contradicted by Brian Smith andRathke's testimony) all support the inference of her larcenous intent and undermine her claim ofright.
Defendant's remaining arguments have been considered and rejected.[*4]
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur.Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote 1: Lowin confusingly testified thather grandmother owned the property while defendant testified that she was the owner.
Footnote 2: The truck had an engine in itsbed, but it was not conclusively established that this was the same engine that had burned out.Rathke subsequently paid Isbell's grandfather $200 to purchase the truck as scrap metal.
Footnote 3: We are not persuaded bydefendant's claim, raised at trial, that these vehicles constitute "junk cars" under the Town ofTioga Junk Yard Ordinance, which defendant was required to dispose of. Defendant did nottestify that she relied upon this ordinance, and we do not find that it negated her larcenous intentor established her claim of right. Moreover, defendant has not argued that, due to their condition,the vehicles did not satisfy the definition of "motor vehicles" in Vehicle and Traffic Law §125.
Footnote 4: While a vehicle is deemedabandoned if, among other things, it is left unattended on the property of another withoutpermission (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1224 [1] [d]), a private property owneris not thereby vested with ownership or the right to sell the vehicle and keep the proceeds.
Footnote 5: Lowin testified that she left anote on a piece of wood next to her vehicle indicating she would be returning to claim thevehicles, but conceded that defendant may not have seen it. Lowin also testified that she calleddefendant, but defendant refused to speak with her.