Opinion
February 2, 1996
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Egan, J.
Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and two counts of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, arising out of defendant's operation of stolen motor vehicles on February 18 and 24, 1993. By failing to specifically raise the issue as part of his trial motion for dismissal, defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the conviction regarding the February 24 incident is not supported by legally sufficient evidence of value (see, CPL 470.05; People v Lawrence, 85 N.Y.2d 1002, 1004). In any event, that contention lacks merit. The owner, a used car dealer with about 20 years of experience, testified that he purchased the vehicle from another dealer for $3,000, that the vehicle had been sold for $4,000 and was to be delivered to the buyer on the day after the theft, and that, in his opinion, the vehicle had a value of $4,000. That testimony is sufficient to establish that the vehicle had a value in excess of $3,000 (see, People v. Mims, 178 A.D.2d 178; People v. Vacarella, 177 A.D.2d 990, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 833).
Defendant also failed to preserve for review his contention that the prosecutor improperly commented on the credibility of police witnesses (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 324). Were we to reach the merits, we would conclude that such isolated comment was a fair response to the comments of defense counsel on summation attacking the conduct and credibility of those witnesses (see, People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 190; People v. Gonzalez, 206 A.D.2d 946, 947, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 867) and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Tidwell, 207 A.D.2d 957, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1039; People v. Mott, 94 A.D.2d 415, 419).
Defendant's contention that excessive bail was imposed prior to trial is not reviewable on this appeal from the judgment of conviction (see, CPL 450.10; People ex rel. Klein v. Krueger, 25 N.Y.2d 497). County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever those counts of the indictment pertaining to each incident (see, People v. Cabrera, 188 A.D.2d 1062, 1063) and properly determined that the police witness had an independent basis for an in-court identification of defendant (see, People v. Brown, 187 A.D.2d 662, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Strudwick, 170 A.D.2d 969, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 1001; People v. Colson, 148 A.D.2d 626, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 662). We conclude that the remaining contentions raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief are without merit.