Opinion
April 28, 1995
Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that the People failed to establish that defendant had been convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the preceding 10 years, as required to convict him of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree. The People supplemented the "transcript of record" with sufficient identifying proof from which the trier of fact could find that the individual convicted of unauthorized use in 1985 and defendant were one and the same (see, People v Dugan, 188 A.D.2d 927, 928, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 839; cf., People v Vollick, 148 A.D.2d 950, affd 75 N.Y.2d 877 ; People v Jones, 177 A.D.2d 1000). Additionally, defendant failed to preserve for review his contention that the "transcript of record" was improperly admitted into evidence pursuant to CPL 60.60 (1) (see, CPL 470.05) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit.
We reject defendant's contention that the People failed to establish that the value of the stolen car exceeded the statutory minimum of $100 (see, People v Williams, 74 N.Y.2d 675; People v Adams, 198 A.D.2d 545, 546). "[A]bsent expert testimony, proof of the recognized `book value,' in combination with other testimony, may suffice to establish market value" (People v Kirkwood, 200 A.D.2d 409, 410, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 806). Lastly, we reject the contention of defendant that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe and should be reduced as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [b]). There has been no demonstration that County Court abused its discretion or that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a reduction of the sentence (see, People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302).