N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART Specific Offenses / TITLE Offenses Involving Theft / ARTICLE Larceny
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 155.45 (2026)

Larceny; pleading and proof

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 155.45 Larceny; pleading and proof.
  1. Where it is an element of the crime charged that property was taken
from the person or obtained by extortion, an indictment for larceny must
so specify. In all other cases, an indictment, information or complaint
for larceny is sufficient if it alleges that the defendant stole
property of the nature or value required for the commission of the crime
charged without designating the particular way or manner in which such
property was stolen or the particular theory of larceny involved.
  2. Proof that the defendant engaged in any conduct constituting
larceny as defined in section 155.05 is sufficient to support any
indictment, information or complaint for larceny other than one charging
larceny by extortion. An indictment charging larceny by extortion must
be supported by proof establishing larceny by extortion.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: People v. Capparelli, 158 Misc. 2d 996 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Capparelli, 158 Misc. 2d 996 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1993). · cites it 8× “(Penal Law § 155.45 [2].) It is clear that where the People have relied upon a theory of larceny by extortion under those sections of the Penal Law which expressly include extortion as part of the definition of the offense (Penal Law § 155.”
People v. Foster, 541 N.E.2d 1 (NY 1989). · cites it 2× “Moreover, the majority’s novel construction of subdivision (1) as merely a pleading requirement rather than a substantive definition (majority opn, at 605) renders the subdivision mere surplusage since the pleading requirements for larceny are clearly outlined in Penal Law §…”
Crispino v. Allard, 378 F. Supp. 2d 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “However, the penal law specifically provides that, except where it is an element of the crime charged that, property was taken from the person or obtained by extortion, the People-need not disclose “the particular theory of larceny” on- which they are relying.”
People v. Houghtaling, 14 A.D.3d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “Contrary to defendant’s claims raised for the first time on appeal, the People were not required to satisfy, and County Court was not required to charge, the higher moral certainty standard of proof which, notably, governs the trier of fact and is not the appropriate standard…”
United States v. Colotti, 71 F.4th 102 (2d Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “See N.Y. Penal Law § 155.45 . That section provides: 1.”
People v. Ponnapula, 229 A.D.2d 257 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). “(Penal Law § 155.45 [1].) The Penal Law " 'permit[s] conviction upon pleading and proof charging and establishing "larceny” in its broadly defined form regardless of the basic common law offense underlying the particular case.”
People v. Kaminsky, 127 Misc. 2d 497 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985). “(Penal Law § 155.45 [2].) The prosecutor is not compelled to adopt one theory of larceny to the exclusion of all others, but the evidence must suffice to establish larceny in some recognizable form.”
People v. McNamara, 304 A.D.2d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). “Although at that point the People objected and asserted that they were proceeding under a larceny by false promise theory, after a short recess the People recanted their earlier position and confirmed that they were proceeding under the larceny by embezzlement theory — the same…”
People v. Halloran, 131 Misc. 2d 901 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “The grand larceny counts, properly, do not specify the manner of the unlawful taking (Penal Law § 155.45). The scheme to defraud count, however, recites that by means of a "check-kite”, the defendants "created the false appearance of substantial multi-million dollar balances in…”
People v. Watson, 284 A.D.2d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Where the grand larceny count of the indictment did not specify a theory of larceny, and the court instructed the jury as to the theories of larceny by false promise and false pretense, the court properly determined that there was no basis for submission of a special verdict…”
People v. Duffy, 231 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). “Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the indictment insofar as it charged him with grand larceny in the third and fourth degree was not jurisdictionally defective.”
People v. Pillich, 207 A.D.2d 1004 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). “are not required to allege "the particular theory of larceny” in the indictment (Penal Law § 155.45 [1]; see, People v Farruggia, 41 AD2d 894 ), and Supreme Court, as trier of the facts, was entitled to consider the proof supporting both theories under the single count of the…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.