Does Temporarily Taking a Car for a ''joy Ride'' Constitute Larceny ?

In People v. Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 504 N.E.2d 1079, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652 (1986), an armored car company was given cash by Chemical bank so the company could count and transport the money. Unbeknownst to the bank, the company was able to perform those tasks during only part of the time they retained the funds and then invested the money earning fees for the company during periods of up to 48 hours without the bank's authorization. Analogizing this conduct to a wrongdoer who temporarily takes a car for a "joy ride" the Court found this temporary use of the bank's funds legally insufficient to constitute larceny because, inter alia, it at most indicated an intent to temporarily acquire all of the money's value rather than an intent to "deprive" or "appropriate" that value from its owner: As one commentator has noted, the concepts of "deprive" and "appropriate," which "are essential to a definition of larcenous intent," "connote a purpose ... to exert permanent or virtually permanent control over the property taken, or to cause permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use thereof" (Hechtman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law 155.00, p 103. 69 NY2d at 118 .