Opinion
May 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the stolen vehicle which he possessed had a value in excess of $3,000 has not been preserved for appellate review, as this claim was not advanced before the trial court (see, e.g., People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Gomez, 67 N.Y.2d 843; People v Cardona, 136 A.D.2d 556). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the evidence of value, consisting of expert testimony which took into account the reduction in value occasioned by the most serious damage to the automobile, was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see generally, People v Callaway, 133 A.D.2d 838; People v Supino, 64 A.D.2d 720). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's challenge to the sentence imposed is unpersuasive. A fair reading of the sentencing minutes in their entirety demonstrates that the court properly weighed the relevant factors, including the defendant's extensive criminal background and his failure to reform despite the prior imposition of favorable sentences, in determining the appropriate sentence in this case (see, People v Reid, 140 A.D.2d 639). We discern no basis for disturbing the sentence imposed (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Rubin, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.