Respondent asserts that there was insufficient evidence to sustain various of the charges before the Family Court. In evaluating this claim, this Court, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), must determine whether there was any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the Family Court on the basis of the evidence at the hearing (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). With respect to grand larceny in the fourth degree, the complainant testified that the motor vehicle respondent was driving without permission was purchased from a friend two years earlier for $350, which provides some evidence of value (see, People v. Carter, 19 N.Y.2d 967; People v. James, 111 A.D.2d 254, 255-256, affd 67 N.Y.2d 662), and there was also testimony with regard to the condition of the car at the time of the theft, which, taken together, provided sufficient evidence to sustain the charge (see, People v. Reyes, 161 A.D.2d 273, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 863). We find the respondent's remaining arguments to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Rubin, JJ.