Opinion
January 20, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County, Harrington, J., Capilli, J.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
A review of the record reveals that the People established defendant's guilt of every element of criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.05) beyond a reasonable doubt. The proof adduced of property damage to the subject vehicle "in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars", as required by Penal Law § 145.05 was sufficient (see, People v. James, 111 A.D.2d 254; People v. Schroeder, 104 A.D.2d 1055; People v. Supino, 64 A.D.2d 720; People v. Gaul, 22 A.D.2d 805; cf. People v. Johnson, 58 A.D.2d 662). It was not an abuse of discretion to require that a portion of the restitution be paid to the victim's insurance carrier. The carrier reimbursed the victim for the damage to her car and was, therefore, a "victim" under Penal Law § 60.27 (1) and § 65.10 (2) (g) (see generally, United States v. Durham, 755 F.2d 511; United States v. Florence, 741 F.2d 1066; State of Utah v. Stayer, 706 P.2d 611 [Utah]; State v. Merrill, 136 Ariz. 300, 665 P.2d 1022; cf. People v. Hall-Wilson, 119 A.D.2d 999).
Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.