Opinion
February 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's claim, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to admit into evidence the contents of an emergency "911" telephone call and/or sprint report based upon the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule since there was insufficient corroboration of the contents of the call (see, People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 737). In any event, the contents were irrelevant and untrustworthy with respect to any issue regarding the identity of the perpetrator (see, People v Smith, 162 A.D.2d 736, 737; People v. O'Connor, 154 A.D.2d 626).
The Supreme Court also properly denied the defendant's application to charge the jury concerning the lesser-included offense of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree since there was no reasonable view of the evidence by which the jury could find that the value of the car was less than $100 (see, People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 173-174; People v Shuman, 37 N.Y.2d 302, 304).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find that it does not require reversal. Thompson, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.