The complainant's written statement, which was read in its entirety to the grand jury and which provided detailed information relevant to the value of the stolen automobile, provided a sufficient basis from which the jury could "reasonably infer, rather than merely speculate" (People v Lopez, 79 N.Y.2d 402, 405) as to its value. Moreover, while the complainant's statement was not made under oath, the Court of Appeals has held that a statement that is subscribed beneath a warning such as the one found on the within document, i.e., "False statements made herein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law," is "practically as well as theoretically, no different than a statement under oath" (People v Sullivan, 56 N.Y.2d 378, 384). Under these circumstances, we find that the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to sustain the charges, and the indictment should be reinstated.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.