| Matter of Demetri B. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06561 [54 AD3d 331] |
| August 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Demetri B., Appellant. |
—[*1]
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and SusanPaulson 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, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated August 29,2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 27, 2007, made after ahearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crimes of gang assault in the second degree and menacing in the third degree,adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months.The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated June 27, 2007.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's contention that he was denied his right to effective cross-examination isunpreserved for appellate review (cf. CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 432 [2005]; People vFernandez, 280 AD2d 680, 681 [2001]). In any event, the appellant's contention is withoutmerit. The appellant was afforded a full and fair opportunity to expose infirmities in thecomplainant's testimony through cross-examination (see Delaware v Fensterer, 474 US15, 22 [1985]; People v Mercado, 237 AD2d 200 [1997]; Matter of Malik S.J.,200 AD2d 621 [1994]; People v Barton, 183 AD2d 836 [1992]). The appellant didnot have any right to a witness who is free from forgetfulness, confusion, or evasion (seeDelaware v Fensterer, 474 US at 21-22; People v Barton, 183 AD2d at 836).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matterof David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthat the [*2]appellant committed an act which, if committed by anadult, would have constituted the crimes of gang assault in the second degree and menacing inthe third degree. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to bedetermined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination shouldbe accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Willie W., 32 AD3d 479, 480 [2006]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633,644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), weare satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (see Matterof Willie W., 32 AD3d at 480; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d at 633). Mastro, J.P.,Dillon, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.