| Matter of Tegure J. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04874 [51 AD3d 1026] |
| May 27, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tegure J., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein andJulian L. Kalkstein 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 (Lubow, J.), dated July 10,2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated April 13, 2007, made after ahearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crimes of petit larceny and resisting arrest, adjudged him to be a juveniledelinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months subject to certain conditions.The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated April 13, 2007.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matterof David H., 69 NY2d 792 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), wefind that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed acts which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of petit larceny and resisting arrest(see Penal Law §§ 155.25, 205.30). Moreover, resolution of issues ofcredibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard thewitnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter ofTanasia Elanie E., 49 AD3d 642 [2008]; Matter of Allison K., 48 AD3d 813 [2008];Matter of Charles S., 41 AD3d 484 [2007]). Upon the exercise of our factual reviewpower (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the Family Court's findings are notagainst the weight of the evidence.[*2]
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the courtprovidently exercised its discretion in adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and placing him onprobation (see Family Ct Act § 352.1), rather than directing an adjournment incontemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct Act § 315.3). The disposition wasappropriate in light of, inter alia, the appellant's poor attendance and performance at school, andthe recommendation made in the probation report (see Matter of Michael E., 48 AD3d810 [2008]; Matter of Oneil D., 35 AD3d 602 [2006]; Matter of Cesar E., 32AD3d 1024 [2006]; Matter of Gerald W., 12 AD3d 522, 523 [2004]). Lifson, J.P., Miller,Dillon and Eng, JJ., concur.