IN THE MTR. OF DAYTRILL

The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence. The evidence supported the inference of larcenous intent (see Penal Law § 155.05; § 155.00 [3], [4]; People v Kirnon, 39 AD2d 666, 667, affd 31 NY2d 877; cf People v Tse, 261 AD2d 309, lv denied 93 NY2d 1006), and appellant's theory that he is guilty, at most, of misapplication of property (Penal Law § 165.00) is supported only by his self-serving statements to the victim, which the court was entitled to discredit.

The court's calculation of the amount of restitution was supported by the record, which included evidence that appellant's acts rendered the victim's cell phone inoperable, and the restitution order was a proper exercise of discretion (see e.g. Matter of Antonio M., 214 AD2d 571; Matter of James A., 205 AD2d 621).