The court properly declined to submit the lesser included offense of second-degree reckless endangerment. There was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that would support such a charge. Even giving due consideration to trial issues concerning police credibility, there was still no reasonable view other than that defendant led the police on a very dangerous high speed chase, and that his conduct established first-degree reckless endangerment (see People v Parks, 281 AD2d 217 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 866 [2001]).
Defendant was adjudicated a second felony offender on the basis of a prior conviction under New Jersey law for aggravated assault (NJ Stat Ann § 2C:12-1 [b] [1]). However, that offense can be committed through nonintentional conduct that is not the equivalent of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25), since, unlike the New York statute, the New Jersey statute does not require creation of a grave risk of death. Matter of Villar (212 AD2d 86, 87 [1995]) is not to the contrary, because it only found the two statutes in question to be “essentially similar” under the standard applicable to automatic disbarment of a convicted attorney (see Matter of Cahn v Joint Bar Assn. Grievance Commn. for Second & Eleventh Jud. Dists., 52 NY2d 479, 482 [1981]; Matter of Chu, 42 NY2d 490, 492-493 [1977]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.