PL 165.05 · Article 165

Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree

The statute provides three alternatives: knowingly using or riding in a vehicle without the owner's consent, intentionally misusing a vehicle entrusted for paid service, or intentionally keeping an entrusted vehicle so far beyond its agreed return time that the retention grossly deviates from the agreement. It also states a knowledge presumption for the first alternative and a nonexclusive timing-and-notice example of gross deviation for retained vehicles.

24 Years Experience · Since 2002Former ADAAvailable 24/7Se Habla Español

Has your loved one been arrested or taken into police custody?

Text us immediately · (845) 290-2492

Definition under New York law

PL 165.05 · Original statutory wording; excerpts must be read together with the full section.

§ 165.05 Unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree. A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree when: 1. Knowing that he does not have the consent of the owner, he takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses a vehicle. A person who engages in any such conduct without the consent of the owner is presumed to know that he does not have such consent; or 2. Having custody of a vehicle pursuant to an agreement between himself or another and the owner thereof whereby he or another is to perform for compensation a specific service for the owner involving the maintenance, repair or use of such vehicle, he intentionally uses or operates the same, without the consent of the owner, for his own purposes in a manner constituting a gross deviation from the agreed purpose; or 3. Having custody of a vehicle pursuant to an agreement with the owner thereof whereby such vehicle is to be returned to the owner at a specified time, he intentionally retains or withholds possession thereof, without the consent of the owner, for so lengthy a period beyond the specified time as to render such retention or possession a gross deviation from the agreement. For purposes of this section "a gross deviation from the agreement" shall consist of, but not be limited to, circumstances wherein a person who having had custody of a vehicle for a period of fifteen days or less pursuant to a written agreement retains possession of such vehicle for at least seven days beyond the period specified in the agreement and continues such possession for a period of more than two days after service or refusal of attempted service of a notice in person or by certified mail at an address indicated in the agreement stating (i) the date and time at which the vehicle was to have been returned under the agreement; (ii) that the owner does not consent to the continued withholding or retaining of such vehicle and demands its return; and that continued withholding or retaining of the vehicle may constitute a class A misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars or by a sentence to a term of imprisonment for a period of up to one year or by both such fine and imprisonment. Unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Read the full section at the New York State Senate

In everyday language

The statute provides three alternatives: knowingly using or riding in a vehicle without the owner's consent, intentionally misusing a vehicle entrusted for paid service, or intentionally keeping an entrusted vehicle so far beyond its agreed return time that the retention grossly deviates from the agreement. It also states a knowledge presumption for the first alternative and a nonexclusive timing-and-notice example of gross deviation for retained vehicles.

At a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove every element of the charged subsection and that you committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. An accusation is not proof of guilt. Where the statute provides alternatives, the prosecutor need not prove every alternative; the charged theory matters. Affirmative defenses may have different proof rules.

CPL § 70.20

What the prosecutor must prove

  • The prosecutor must prove every requirement of an applicable alternative beyond a reasonable doubt. The three alternatives are not cumulative.
  • Alternative 1: The person accused took, operated, controlled, rode in, or otherwise used a vehicle knowing the owner had not consented. These forms of use are alternatives; the statute presumes knowledge of lack of consent when such conduct occurs without the owner's consent.
  • Alternative 2: The person accused had custody under an agreement between the owner and the person accused or another person for the person accused or another person to perform a specific paid service involving the vehicle's maintenance, repair, or use. The person accused intentionally used or operated it without the owner's consent for personal purposes in a way that grossly deviated from the agreed purpose.
  • Alternative 3: The person accused had custody under an agreement with the owner requiring return at a specified time, and intentionally retained or withheld possession without the owner's consent so long beyond that time that the retention or possession grossly deviated from the agreement.
  • The statute's nonexclusive gross-deviation example involves custody for fifteen days or less under a written agreement, retention at least seven days beyond the agreed period, and continued possession for more than two days after service or refusal of attempted service of notice in person or by certified mail at an address in the agreement. The notice must state the agreed return date and time, the owner's lack of consent and demand for return, and the statutory warning about possible criminal consequences; this example is not the only way to establish gross deviation.

Defenses that commonly apply

  • What permissions, extensions, or communications show whether the owner consented, and what did the person accused know about consent?
  • For a paid-service theory, did the custody agreement cover the alleged use, and was any personal use intentional and a gross deviation from the agreed purpose?
  • For a retention theory, what do the agreement, return timeline, and notice records show about intentional withholding and the alleged gross deviation?

Penalties and collateral consequences

A Class A Misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of up to 364 days and a fine of up to $1,000 or up to twice the gain.

Common questions about your defense

Does returning a vehicle late automatically establish unauthorized use?

Under the retention alternative, lateness alone is insufficient: the retention must be intentional, without the owner's consent, and so prolonged that it grossly deviates from the agreement. An agreed extension, evidence concerning intent, or a dispute about the duration and circumstances could challenge those requirements, and the statutory timing-and-notice example is not exclusive. The prosecutor must prove the applicable alternative beyond a reasonable doubt, so failure to satisfy that example does not automatically defeat every possible theory.

Why is starting a defense early imperative?

An early defense is imperative to protect your rights and preserve evidence that may disappear. Keep court papers, messages, footage, and witness information without deleting or altering anything. Counsel can review court dates and applicable deadlines, request evidence, and begin preparing your defense immediately.

How does an experienced lawyer help build the best possible defense?

Your lawyer checks the exact subsection, compares its requirements with the evidence, and listens to your account. Depending on the charge, counsel may investigate identification, intent, witness reliability, and possible problems with searches, statements, or testing. Working together on an early strategy is imperative to pursue the best possible outcome in your circumstances; no outcome is guaranteed.

Does an arrest or police report prove the charge?

No. A police report is part of the case, not a finding of guilt. Your lawyer can compare its claims with video, records, and witnesses and assess whether admissible evidence meets each applicable requirement.

Can the charge be dismissed or reduced?

That depends on the evidence, the charged subsection, and procedural rules. Challenging evidence, filing motions, negotiating a legally available resolution, or preparing for trial may be appropriate. No lawyer can promise dismissal, reduction, or acquittal.

Every case turns on its own facts. The information on this page is general, not legal advice.

Related charges

Related practice areas

Text us for immediate helpCall now