The People established that the stolen vehicle could not conceivably have had a value of $100 or less (Penal Law § 165.45). This was proven through the testimony of the owner as to the car's condition, and the testimony of an expert appraiser who did not examine the car but consulted with the owner and recognized evaluation resources ( People v Rodriguez, 171 A.D.2d 419, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 973). Since no reasonable view of the evidence could have supported a finding that the car had a value of less than $100, defendant's request for a charge of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree as a lesser included offense was properly denied ( see, People v Cabassa, 79 N.Y.2d 722, 728, cert denied sub nom. Lind v New York, 506 U.S. 1011; People v Douglas, 194 A.D.2d 408, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 717). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.