In New York, which statement about receipt of stolen property is true?

• A. Knowingly possessing stolen property merges with larceny
• B. Possessing stolen property depends on intent
• C. Knowingly possessing stolen property does not merge with larceny
• D. Impossibility is a defense

Answer: (C)

In New York, receiving or possessing stolen property is treated as a separate crime from larceny. The key idea is that larceny focuses on the act of taking property with intent to steal, while possession of stolen property targets someone who physically has stolen property and knows it is stolen. Because the elements are distinct—taking versus knowing and possessing stolen property—the offense of knowingly possessing stolen property does not merge with larceny. This means a person can be convicted of both if the evidence shows they stole the property and also knowingly possessed it afterward.

So that statement is true because the possession/receipt offense remains a separate charge with its own mens rea (knowledge of theft) and does not collapse into larceny. The other options are not correct: merging possession into larceny would ignore the separate element of knowledge; describing possession as a general intent matter doesn’t capture the required knowledge that the property is stolen; and impossibility is not a valid defense to possession of stolen property in this context.