| Matter of Anthony R. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06696 [43 AD3d 939] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Anthony R., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela A. Seider Dolgow andElizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal isfrom an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated April 25,2006, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 7, 2006, made after ahearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, wouldhave constituted the crimes of criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the firstdegree, and sexual abuse in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent andplaced him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal from the order of dispositionbrings up for review the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that thecomplaining witness was subjected to "forcible compulsion" (Penal Law § 130.00 [8]) and"sexual contact" (Penal Law § 130.00 [3]) is unpreserved for appellate review as theappellant failed to raise these specific claims before the Family Court (see Matter of Rahmel S., 4 AD3d365, 366 [2004]; cf. CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19[1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency(see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficientto support the court's findings. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matterto be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determinationshould be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Charles S., 41 AD3d [*2]484 [2007]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon theexercise of our factual review power (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the court'sfindings were not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Kryzstof K., 283AD2d 431, 432 [2001]; cf. People v Romero, supra).
The appellant's contention that the Family Court should have drawn adverse inferences withrespect to certain witnesses who did not testify at the fact-finding hearing is unpreserved forappellate review (see Matter ofNasheem P., 23 AD3d 662, 664 [2005]; Matter of Toniqua A., 7 AD3d 792, 793 [2004]; cf. CPL470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit (cf. People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427[1986]). Mastro, J.P., Covello, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ., concur.