ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's argument, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the market value of the stolen items exceeded the $1,000 threshold needed to sustain a conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree (see People v. Irrizari, 5 N.Y.2d 142; People v. Hill, 220 A.D.2d 927).
Furthermore, the defendant's claim that the jury charge was confusing and erroneous is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Rodriguez, 187 A.D.2d 465).
SMITH, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.