DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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 defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
As the defendant did not request a hearing to fix the amount of restitution and the record contained sufficient evidence to support a finding as to the out-of-pocket loss he caused, the County Court properly fixed the amount of restitution without holding a hearing (see, People v. Kim, 91 N.Y.2d 407). The amount of restitution was not excessive because "the ordinary meaning of `restitution' is restoring someone to a position he occupied before a particular event" (Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 416; see also, People v. Purcell, 161 A.D.2d 812).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.