Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.).
Evidence that defendant lacked a driver's license was properly admitted as relevant to whether defendant was authorized to use the stolen car in which the police found him, it being highly unlikely that a person unable to produce a license or registration would have authorization to use a car ( see, People v. Santarelli, 49 N.Y.2d 241, 247-248). Nor is there merit to defendant's claim that the court should have charged temporary and lawful possession and justification. Assuming, arguendo, that the far-fetched scenario defendant argues as a reasonable view of the evidence — that he entered the car to keep warm and was attempting, when arrested, to move it to a safer place near the curb — such conduct was neither "temporary and lawful" nor "justified" as an "emergency measure" (Penal Law § 35.05).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.