Contrary to the conclusion reached by Supreme Court, the People failed to establish that defendant committed the crime of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, which requires proof that defendant operated a vehicle with 10 or more license suspensions in effect (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[a][ii]). In this regard, the abstract of defendant's driving record that was introduced into evidence by the People was not properly certified as required by CPLR 4540(b)(see, People v. Smith, 258 A.D.2d 245, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 829).
The evidence was, however, sufficient to sustain a conviction for the lesser included offense of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, which requires proof that defendant had three or more suspensions in effect (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[a][iv]). We note that this charge was supported by the admission of eight notices of suspension and defendant has not challenged the admissibility of this evidence on appeal.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.