## Facts

- Around 1:00 a.m., police officers on patrol observed an automobile at the curb with headlights on, engine running, and a person in the driver’s seat; the wheels were turned and the car was beginning to pull out.
- The officers blocked the vehicle’s exit and approached the driver, Laureano Alamo, Jr.
- Alamo could not produce a proper registration; officers determined the car belonged to another person residing nearby.
- Officers observed a forced vent window and found burglary tools and a hypodermic instrument inside the vehicle.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury that it could find a completed larceny if Alamo had taken control of the car even if the car had not been moved, and it refused to instruct on attempted larceny.
- The jury convicted Alamo of larceny (reduced to third degree based on value) and possession offenses; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether larceny of an automobile under N.Y. Penal Law § 155.05(1) requires movement (asportation), or whether acquisition of dominion and control without movement can constitute a completed larceny.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on attempted larceny as a lesser offense.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held that physical movement of the automobile is not required to complete larceny under § 155.05(1) when the defendant has exercised dominion and control with the requisite intent.
- The court held the refusal to charge attempted larceny was not error because the evidence supported a completed taking under the statutory definition.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.Y. Penal Law § 155.05(1), larceny is defined as the “wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding” of property; the focus is on wrongful dominion and control, not physical displacement.
- In an automobile-theft context, a defendant’s assumption of functional control and possession (e.g., positioned to drive with the engine running) can satisfy the “taking/withholding” element even if the car has not yet moved.
- A trial court need not instruct on attempt where, on the evidence, a rational jury would not have a basis to find only an attempt rather than a completed larceny as statutorily defined.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Alamo’s larceny conviction, ruling that larceny of an automobile is complete once the defendant wrongfully assumes dominion and control with intent to deprive, even absent any actual movement of the vehicle, and that an attempted-larceny instruction was therefore unwarranted.


People v. Alamo, 34 N.Y.2d 453, 315 N.E.2d 446 (N.Y. 1974)