Appeal from judgments of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Edward A. Maron, J.), rendered April 6, 2006. The judgments, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, imposed sentences including restitution in the sum of $5,013.23 to the victim.

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

Defendant's contention that the sentencing court erred in failing to hold a hearing on restitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Owens, 10 AD3d 619 [2004]). With respect to the issue of whether the sentencing court or the Probation Department fixed the amount of restitution and the manner of performance, such issue may always be raised on appeal even though not raised in the court below (People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 156 [1982]). Turning to the merits of defendant's contention, while a court may call on the Probation Department "to act as a preliminary fact finder and submit its recommendations in a written report . . . . in the end it is for the court, which alone must impose the sentence, to decide how much of the report, if any, to adopt and how much to reject" (People v Fuller, 57 NY2d at 158-159; see Penal Law §§ 60.27, 65.10 [5]). In this case, the record reflects that the Probation Department submitted a recommendation to the court as to both the total amount of restitution to be ordered and the payment terms. The Probation Department reported that the vehicle's owner had paid out the deductible on the insurance policy and that the insurance company had paid the balance of the cost to repair the vehicle. The Probation Department's report was provided to defense counsel prior to sentence, and defendant did not challenge either the factual information set forth in the report or the recommendation. The court, in imposing sentence, properly adopted the unopposed recommendations of the Probation Department. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Scheinkman, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: March 21, 2008