Opinion
September 22, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Michael Gage, J.).
The charges against the appellant were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The arresting officer testified at the hearing that he observed the vehicle in which appellant was a passenger cross a double yellow line and then veer back into its own lane. After confirming that the vehicle was stolen, he and other officers surrounded the car, ordered the four occupants out, and placed them under arrest. The steering column was ripped apart in an effort to gain access to the wire that started the car, and there was a hole where the right passenger-door lock should have been. The lock was found on the floor near the front passenger seat, and a screwdriver was recovered from the driver's pocket.
This direct evidence was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that appellant did not have the owner's consent to use the vehicle (Penal Law § 165.05). Evidence of an arresting officer's direct observations and investigation, combined with reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, suffice to prove guilt of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt (Matter of Jose M., 177 A.D.2d 399, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 756).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.