Opinion
March 20, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by reducing the defendant's conviction of grand larceny in the third degree to petit larceny, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree. Moreover, with respect to those convictions, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). However, the defendant's conviction of grand larceny in the third degree must be reduced to petit larceny inasmuch as the People failed to establish the market value of the stolen property at the time of the crime or the cost of replacement within a reasonable time thereafter (see, Penal Law § 155.20; former § 155.30 [1]; People v. Funchess, 137 A.D.2d 831; People v James, 111 A.D.2d 254, affd 67 N.Y.2d 662). There is no need to remit the matter for resentencing since the defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could be sentenced on the petit larceny conviction (see, Penal Law § 155.25, 70.15 Penal [1]; People v. Jones, 111 A.D.2d 264).
We have examined the contentions raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.