The defendant's contention that the evidence presented as to the second and third counts of the indictment, charging grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, respectively, was legally insufficient to prove that the value of the stolen property exceeded $1,000 has not been preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05). However, we reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see People v. Cooper, 247 A.D.2d 402; People v. Mathis, 179 A.D.2d 779). The evidence with respect to these two counts was insufficient to comply with the statutory requisite that "the value of the [stolen] property exceeds one thousand dollars" (Penal Law §§ 155.30, 155.45; see People v. Lopez, 79 N.Y.2d 402; People v. Alicea, 25 N.Y.2d 685; People v. Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 443; People v. Bernard, 123 A.D.2d 324). Nevertheless, there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of the lesser-included offenses of petit larceny ( see Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree ( see Penal Law § 165.40).
Based only upon “a computer search”, the police approximated the value of the unvouchered, stolen property “to be over $13,000.” However, the People are required to present the Grand Jury with sufficient evidence to establish the value of property where value is an element of the grand larceny theory alleged (People v. Mathis, 179 A.D.2d 779, 579 N.Y.S.2d 142 [2d Dep't], app. denied 79 N.Y.2d 1004, 584 N.Y.S.2d 458, 594 N.E.2d 952 [1992] ; see also People v. Ju Ju Jiang, 99 A.D.3d 724, 951 N.Y.S.2d 749 [2d Dep't]lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1062, 962 N.Y.S.2d 613, 985 N.E.2d 923 [2013] ; People v. Seymour, 77 A.D.3d 976, 910 N.Y.S.2d 487 [2d Dep't 2010] ). Evidence of value must not be presented to the Grand Jury in an approximated and conclusory manner. (People v. Walker, 119 A.D.3d 1402, 989 N.Y.S.2d 756 [4th Dep't 2014] ; see also People v. Helms, 119 A.D.3d 1153, 990 N.Y.S.2d 314 [3d Dep't 2014] ).