PEOPLE v. FOSTER

The court's imposition of $7,030 for restitution to be made to the victim bank from a robbery masterminded by defendant, who was the bank's employee at the time, is neither harsh nor excessive. As defendant admitted the amount stolen from the bank the court did not need to hold a hearing simply on defendant's ability to pay (cf., People v. Alonzo, 155 A.D.2d 233). Defendant may seek resentencing pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5) if she is unable to make the mandated payments in the future.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.