Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant's contention that the proof at trial was insufficient to establish that the value of the stolen vehicle was in excess of $3,000 at the time the crime was committed. The owner testified that the vehicle was purchased new for $9,000 approximately nine months before it was stolen and that it was in "perfectly fine" condition. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, sufficiently established that the vehicle's value exceeded the $3,000 statutory minimum (see, People v Diaz, 184 A.D.2d 327, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 928; People v Brown, 174 A.D.2d 448, lv granted 79 N.Y.2d 854, affd 80 N.Y.2d 361; People v White, 167 A.D.2d 256, 257, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 912). Furthermore, weighing the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony, we conclude that the verdict convicting defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). County Court was not required to conduct an independent inquiry to determine whether defendant was aware of his right to testify at trial and whether defendant waived that right (see, People v Burroughs, 191 A.D.2d 956; People v Dougherty, 190 A.D.2d 989). Defendant's sentence is not harsh and excessive.