DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt on the charge of grand larceny in the third degree because the People failed to prove that the value of the stolen vehicle exceeded $3,000 ( see Penal Law § 155.35). The contention is without merit because the defendant was not charged with grand larceny regarding the theft of the subject vehicle, but rather, was charged with criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree ( see Penal Law § 165.50). Assuming that the defendant's contention is that the People failed to prove his guilt of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree for the above-stated reason, it is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Smith, 285 A.D.2d 480; People v. Robinson, 244 A.D.2d 363). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the value of the stolen car as exceeding $3,000, and to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Penal Law § 165.50; People v. Williams, 74 N.Y.2d 675; People v. Smith, supra; People v. Robinson, supra; People v. Adams, 198 A.D.2d 545). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.