Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
A review of the record reveals that the People established defendant's guilt of every element of criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.05) beyond a reasonable doubt. The proof adduced of property damage to the subject vehicle "in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars", as required by Penal Law § 145.05 was sufficient (see, People v. James, 111 A.D.2d 254; People v. Schroeder, 104 A.D.2d 1055; People v. Supino, 64 A.D.2d 720; People v. Gaul, 22 A.D.2d 805; cf. People v. Johnson, 58 A.D.2d 662). It was not an abuse of discretion to require that a portion of the restitution be paid to the victim's insurance carrier. The carrier reimbursed the victim for the damage to her car and was, therefore, a "victim" under Penal Law § 60.27 (1) and § 65.10 (2) (g) (see generally, United States v. Durham, 755 F.2d 511; United States v. Florence, 741 F.2d 1066; State of Utah v. Stayer, 706 P.2d 611 [Utah]; State v. Merrill, 136 Ariz. 300, 665 P.2d 1022; cf. People v. Hall-Wilson, 119 A.D.2d 999).
Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.