Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe (see, CPL 470.15 [b]). We reject the contention, raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief, that the sentencing court lacked authority to order restitution in the amount of $5,000. Both defendant and his counsel expressly agreed to that amount. Thus, the court did not err in directing defendant to pay restitution in that amount to the Rochester Police Department even though that Department failed to file an affidavit required by Penal Law § 60.27 (9) (see, People v Perez, 203 A.D.2d 665, 667, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 970). Further, the court was not required to conduct a hearing on the amount of restitution (see, People v. Lugo, 191 A.D.2d 648).