It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by reducing the total amount of restitution to $108,760.64 and as modified the judgment is affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.40) and burglary in the third degree (§ 140.20). We agree with defendant that the amount of restitution imposed should be reduced to take into account the $7,142.49 in stolen funds recovered from defendant's apartment. Those funds are to be returned to the victim, and the victim otherwise would be compensated beyond the extent of its actual loss ( see generally People v Turco, 130 AD2d 785, 786-787, lv denied 70 NY2d 755). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the total amount of restitution to $108,760.64, which includes a total surcharge of 10%. Contrary to defendant's further contention, County Court properly directed defendant to pay a surcharge of 10% rather than 5%, based upon an affidavit of an official from the Ontario County Probation Department indicating that "the actual cost of the collection and administration of restitution . . . exceeds [the initial 5% surcharge]" (Penal Law § 60.27; see People v Aikens, 11 AD3d 932). We note, however, that "defendant may apply to the court to reduce the surcharge to 5% of the amount of restitution on the ground of undue hardship" ( Aikens, 11 AD3d 932). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.