Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

c33:No. 43, Docket 31218

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005-05-16

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:33:10

J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result. I would not find it necessary to speculate on the New York definition of larceny as applied to these facts. In view of Hanson and Underwood and the possible effects on the criminal aspects of such a situation, I am not at all sure the New York courts would not hold this to be larceny. I do agree, however, that the complaint was properly dismissed on the ground that coverage was lacking in view of the “trading” exclusion (e) in the policy.

Passage view · GavelSight