DECISION AND ORDER The defendant is charged with Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree and various other related charges. The court has read the Grand Jury minutes in camera pursuant to CPL §210.30 (4). After doing so, the court finds that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the value of the property taken by the defendant, as alleged in Counts 1 (charging Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, PL §155.30[1]) and 3 (charging Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree, PL §165.45[1]). A lay person must provide a “basis of knowledge for his statement of value before it can be accepted as legally sufficient evidence of such value” (People v. Lopez, 79 NY2d 402, 404 [1992] [dismissing an indictment at the Grand Jury stage for insufficient evidence of value]; People v. James, 111 AD2d 254 [2nd Dept 1985]; compare People v. Jackson, 194 AD2d 691 [2d Dept 1993]). Without a proper basis and evidence of the value as defined by PL §155.20, the evidence will be insufficient (People v. Irrizari, 5 NY2d 142 [1959]; People v. James, id.; People v. Walker, 119 AD3d 1402 [4th Dept 2014]). The defendant is alleged to have stolen a moped. The complaining witness testified that he purchased the moped in August of this year for $1,800, and that it is a black “Tank” brand moped. No other information was testified to concerning the value of the property and there was no documentation submitted. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the value of the property taken exceeded $1,000. Counts 1 and 3 are therefore dismissed with leave to re-present. A “motor vehicle” includes vehicles propelled by something other than muscular power and operated on public highways, but excludes certain types of vehicles, such as “bicycles with electric assist” and “electric scooters.” Vehicle and Traffic Law §125. A “motorcycle” is any motor vehicle designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. VTL §123. The Court finds that the defendant is not alleged to have taken a “motor vehicle” that is not a “motorcycle.” There was no testimony about whether the “moped” taken is powered by electricity — in which case it is explicitly exempted from VTL §1251 — or whether it is motorized, which would make it a “motorcycle” according to VTL §123. Motorcycles are exempted from PL §155.30(8) in the plain text of the statute. Accordingly, whether motorized or not, the property taken does not quality for Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, and Count 2 must be dismissed. The court further finds that the evidence presented was legally sufficient to establish the remaining offenses charged and that there was reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed those offenses (People v. Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97 [1984]; People v. Calbud, Inc., et. al., 49 NY2d 389 [1980]; People v. Swamp, 84 NY2d 725 [1995]). The court also finds that the Assistant District Attorney correctly charged the Grand Jury with respect to the applicable law. Therefore, no reduction or dismissal of any remaining counts is warranted. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Counts 1, 2, and 3 are dismissed, with leave to re-present; and it is further ORDERED that the Grand Jury minutes are otherwise sufficient. This case is next on November 9 2023 in TAP-2. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: November 6, 2023
