PEOPLE v. LUGO

Ordered that judgment is affirmed.

Since both the defendant and his counsel expressly indicated on the record that they did not wish to dispute the amount of restitution set by the court, the court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (2), or relying on figures provided by the probation department (see, People v Moore, 176 A.D.2d 968; People v. Kade, 153 A.D.2d 907; People v Kelsky, 144 A.D.2d 386). Additionally, we find the defendant's argument that the court erred in requiring him to make restitution because he was financially unable to do so is without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.