Opinion
October 13, 1994
Appeal from the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.).
Defendant appeals solely from that portion of his sentence which ordered restitution. Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge in satisfaction of a five-count superior court information charging him with five burglaries. He now challenges the amount of restitution fixed by County Court based solely upon the unsworn attachments to the presentence probation report. Absent defendant's express consent to, or explicit admission or concession of, a victim's monetary loss (see, People v. Lugo, 191 A.D.2d 648; People v. Kade, 153 A.D.2d 907, 908; see also, People v. Moore, 176 A.D.2d 968) and absent sufficient evidence in the record as the basis for the court's determination (see, People v. Welsher, 154 A.D.2d 915, 916, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 952), a sentencing court must hold a hearing to determine the amount of restitution (People v. Beaudoin, 195 A.D.2d 996, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 891; People v. James, 186 A.D.2d 679; People v. Kronenberg, 167 A.D.2d 483, 484; see also, People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 281). The record contains neither consent, admission, nor evidence regarding the losses of the several victims. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for a hearing to determine the proper amount of restitution.
Defendant is also correct in his contention that while restitution may be ordered for offenses contained in any accusatory instrument disposed of by a plea of guilty by the defendant to an offense (see, Penal Law § 60.27 [a]; People v. Bertolino, 199 A.D.2d 715, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 849), he cannot be ordered to pay restitution for uncharged criminal acts of which he denies guilt.
Cardona, P.J., White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing so much thereof as ordered restitution; matter remitted to the County Court of Franklin County for a hearing and a new determination as to the proper amount of restitution; and as so modified, affirmed.