Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the County Court erred in imposing restitution without a hearing because, inter alia, there was insufficient evidence in the record to allow the County Court to determine the amount he should pay. However, since the defendant failed to request a restitution hearing, and did not object to the amount of restitution he was required to pay, his present claims regarding the imposition of restitution are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Home, 97 NY2d 404, 414 n 3 [2002]; People v Nelson, 77 AD3d 973, lv denied 15 NY3d 954; People v Harris, 72 AD3d 1110, 1112; People v Isaacs, 71 AD3d 1161; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138).
The defendant's challenge to the imposition of the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee also is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Ruz, 70 NY2d 942, 943; People v Fauntleroy, 57 AD3d 1167, 1168; People v Ziolkowski, 9 AD3d 915; People v Acevedo, 243 AD2d 572, 573).