PEOPLE v. SZURGOT (2025)

The Genesee County Grand Jury has returned an indictment charging the defendant, Timothy W. Szurgot, (hereinafter, “Defendant”) with Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, a class E felony, in violation of Penal Law § 155.30(8).

The Court has examined the Grand Jury minutes pursuant to the Defendant's notice of omnibus motion received on March 7, 2025, together with an Attorney Affirmation of Michael E. Benedict, Esq., received on March 7, 2025. In opposition, the People have submitted an Answering Affirmation of Assistant District Attorney Sarah N. Pittman, affirmed on March 10, 2025.¹

The evidence presented to the Grand Jury has been examined in accord with the Defendant's application pursuant to CPL § 210.30(2).

CPL § 190.65(1) provides that the Grand Jury may indict when:

“(a) the evidence before it is legally sufficient to establish that such person committed such offense․ and (b) competent and admissible evidence before it provides reasonable cause to believe that such person committed such offense.”

“The first prong of the statute requires that the People present a prima facie case; and the second dictates the degree of certitude grand jurors must possess to indict. Furthermore, on a motion to dismiss an indictment under CPL § 210.20(1)(b), the inquiry of the reviewing court is limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence; the court may not examine the adequacy of the proof to establish reasonable cause, since that inquiry is exclusively the province of the Grand Jury”. See People v. Jennings, 69 NY2d 103; See People v. Swamp, 84 NY2d 725.

The issue confronting this Court is whether legally sufficient evidence was presented to the Grand Jury with respect to the value of the stolen vehicle. Here, the victim only stated “Yes, it was” when the ADA asked if the car was worth more than $100. After a review of statutory authority and case law interpreting the same, an unsupported statement of value by the owner is not legally sufficient to establish the value of property (See People v. Loomis, 56 AD3d 1046, 1047 [3rd Dep't 2008])(holding that evidence of value was insufficient since “the only evidence of value was a single statement by the victim that the items were worth “approximately $3,600”); (People v. Lopez, 79 NY2d 402), (the Court of Appeals held that the owner's statement of value in conclusory terms of the allegedly stolen property and the amount of physical damage to it, without indicating the basis for that valuation, did not sustain an indictment where value is an element of the offense charged).

In order for the victim's statement to suffice, it must include the basis for the victim's knowledge of the asserted value, which could be submitted in an affidavit by the owner submitted to a grand jury pursuant to NY Crim. Proc. Law § 190.30(3)(c). In appropriate circumstances, the price for which the property was purchased may provide a sufficient basis to establish its value if the purchase was close in time to the theft (see People v. Loomis, 56 AD3d 1046 [3rd Dep't 2008]). With older vehicles, courts have recognized that even without explicit testimony regarding market value, evidence regarding purchase price, the date of purchase and the condition of the items taken could, in certain circumstances, could permit a reasonable inference as to an item's market value (see People v. Seador, 169 AD3d 619, 620; People v. Vandemortel, 122 AD3d 1333; People v. Markellos, 69 Misc 3d 1209(A)).

Based on the above, the sole count of the Indictment is DISMISSED accordingly with leave to represent within 30 days from the date of this order.²

This Decision constitutes the Order of this Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Both parties agreed to submit on the papers via email.

2.   It should be noted that the prosecutor did not lay a proper foundation for the admission of the store surveillance video. She asked the store employee, who was not present during the event, whether the video “fairly and accurately” represented the events contained therein. This witness was not able to testify to such a fact given her absence from the scene. The Court directs the prosecutor to People v. Patterson, 93 NY2d 80 (1999) for further guidance.

Melissa Lightcap Cianfrini, J.