If the value of the property is $1,000 or less, the charge is petit larceny under Penal Law 155.25, a Class A misdemeanor. Above that figure it becomes grand larceny, which is a felony. One dollar is the whole difference, which is why the number the store writes down deserves far more scrutiny than it usually gets.
Where the dollar figure puts you
| Value | Charge | Level | Statutory maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1,000 or less | Petit larceny (PL 155.25) | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 364 days |
| Over $1,000 | Grand larceny, 4th (PL 155.30) | Class E felony | Up to 4 years |
| Over $3,000 | Grand larceny, 3rd (PL 155.35) | Class D felony | Up to 7 years |
| Over $50,000 | Grand larceny, 2nd (PL 155.40) | Class C felony | Up to 15 years |
| Over $1,000,000 | Grand larceny, 1st (PL 155.42) | Class B felony | Up to 25 years |
A statutory maximum is the ceiling the legislature set, not a forecast of what happens in a given case. For a first offense involving low-value goods that were recovered in saleable condition, the realistic conversation is about whether the case ends without a conviction at all, not about the ceiling.
Larceny requires intent, and intent is provable or it is not
Larceny is a specific intent crime. It is not enough for the prosecution to show that the property left with you. It has to prove that you intended to deprive the owner of it. That distinction does real work in retail cases, because the conduct that produces a stop is usually ambiguous.
Someone who puts an item under the stroller and forgets it, who walks outside to take a phone call while still holding something, who leaves a wallet in the car and intends to come back, or who fails to scan an item at a self-checkout terminal that was behaving badly has done something that looks identical on camera to someone who intended to steal. The video shows movement. It does not show a state of mind.
You do not have to leave the store to be charged. Being stopped before the exit does not defeat the charge, and it is not the defense people often assume it is. What it can affect is whether the merchandise was recovered, which is a different and sometimes more useful point.
Where these cases get contested
The valuation
The figure in the report is supplied by the store. It may reflect the full retail price of items that were on sale, may include tax, or may aggregate several items in a way that lifts a misdemeanor across the felony line. In New York, prosecutors can also combine the value of goods taken from different stores where the takings were part of a common scheme or plan, which is a rule to understand before anyone accepts the arithmetic.
The stop itself
New York gives retailers a limited right to detain a person they reasonably suspect of shoplifting under General Business Law 218, but that protection depends on the detention being reasonable in both manner and length. Whether it was is a question of fact.
The statement
Loss prevention staff are private employees, not police, so Miranda warnings generally do not apply to their questioning. That cuts the way people do not expect: the statement usually comes in. What can be examined is how it was obtained, what was promised, and whether what it says matches what the video shows.
The footage
Surveillance is often shorter and less complete than the report implies. What was preserved, what was overwritten, and which camera angles were never pulled at all are questions to ask early, while the answer still exists.
Check where a figure lands
If you know roughly what the store claimed, the tool below reports which statute that figure falls under and what the ceiling is.
The information on this page is general information about New York law. It is not legal advice about your case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case turns on its own facts.