Opinion
April 19, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, by reducing restitution to the victim from $1,028.51 to $1,018.51; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court afforded the defendant a reasonable opportunity to advance his claims in support of his motion to withdraw his plea (see, People v Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520; People v Machado, 181 A.D.2d 796; People v Maldonado, 178 A.D.2d 554). Moreover, the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty and the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea (see, People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9; People v Machado, 181 A.D.2d 796, supra).
The defendant contends that the court could not fix restitution in an amount that exceeded the recommendation of the probation department. This is incorrect. In fact, "[w]hile a probation department can serve as a preliminary fact finder with respect to the issue of restitution, the sentencing court has the duty to set the amount of restitution and the manner in which the restitution condition is to be satisfied" (People v Kronenberg, 167 A.D.2d 483). Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the court did not err in receiving hearsay evidence at the restitution hearing (see, Penal Law § 60.27; CPL 400.30). However, in relying on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court made a calculation error in computing the amount of restitution due to the victim. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.