Eric Teifke, Acting Public Defender, Rochester (Shirley A. Gorman of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas E. Moran, J.), rendered October 16, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree (five counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of five counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]). Defendant's conviction stems from a string of armed robberies over a four-month period at two businesses located near each other. One of those businesses, a gas station, was robbed four times. The police supplied the gas station employees with a pack of money in which a GPS device was hidden. When the gas station was robbed the fourth time, the police used the GPS device to track the money to defendant's residence, which was located within a short distance of both businesses. A search of that residence uncovered not only the GPS device, but also a gun, ski masks, and clothing consistent with witnesses' descriptions of the gunman, who arrived and departed on foot from each robbery dressed entirely in black clothing, wore a ski mask that covered his face with holes for only his eyes and mouth, and brandished a "funny-looking" or rusty gun that he repeatedly cocked during commission of the crimes.

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Indeed, based upon our independent review of the evidence, we conclude, with respect to all counts, that a different verdict would have been unreasonable (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495; People v Swinton, 87 AD3d 491, 493-494 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 862 [2011]).

Defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in ordering him to pay restitution without a hearing is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant "did not request a hearing to determine the [proper amount of restitution] or otherwise challenge the amount of the restitution order during the sentencing proceeding" (People v Horne, 97 NY2d 404, 414 n 3 [2002]; see People v Jones, 108 AD3d 1206, 1207 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 997 [2013]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant's further contention that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the restitution order " 'cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record' and must therefore be raised pursuant to CPL article 440" (People v Briggs, 169 AD3d 1369, 1370 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 974 [2019]; see People v Posner, 100 AD3d 805, 808 [2d Dept 2012]).

We further conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Finally, we have [*2]reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they do not warrant reversal or modification of the judgment. Present—Whalen, P.J., Smith, Lindley, NeMoyer and Winslow, JJ.