Opinion
June 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.).
Sufficient evidence that the value of the stolen car exceeded the statutory threshold of $3,000 was presented by the complaint report offered by the defense (see, People v. Goldstein, 120 A.D.2d 471, 472-473, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 757) listing a value of $15,000 and indicating a wide difference between the cost of the item and the threshold (see, People v. Carter, 19 N.Y.2d 967), the fact that the car was a late model, eliminating any risk of rapid depreciation (supra), and the photograph of the car showing it to be in good condition (see, People v. Williams, 143 A.D.2d 566, affd 74 N.Y.2d 675). The jury could thus properly infer that the market value of the car exceeded $3,000 minimum at the time of the theft (see, People v. White, 167 A.D.2d 256, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 912).
Defendant's contention that the indictment was duplicitous has not been preserved as a matter of law for appellate review, and we therefore decline to reach it in the interest of justice (CPL 470.05). Were we to review, we would nonetheless affirm, since the count charging the occurrence of the crime "on or about" a certain date is not duplicitous (see, People v. Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290, 294), and the prosecutor's reference to defendant having the keys a few days after the incident was not a reference to a separate crime of possession but of conduct indicative of continued knowing and intentional possession of the car (see, People v. Van Luven, 96 A.D.2d 805, 806 [Alexander, J., concurring], affd 64 N.Y.2d 625).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kassal and Smith, JJ.