| Matter of Christopher C. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06829 [54 AD3d 757] |
| September 9, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christopher C.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and MartaRoss 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 (Bogacz, J.), dated June 29,2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated February 27, 2007, made after ahearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crimes of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in thefourth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a periodof two years upon certain terms and conditions. The appeal brings up for review the fact-findingorder dated February 27, 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, 793 [1987]), we find that the identification evidence was legallysufficient (see Matter of Jamel G.,51 AD3d 918, 919 [2008]; Matterof Christian M., 37 AD3d 834 [2007]). The discrepancies and inconsistencies in theidentification testimony were not of such a magnitude as to render that testimony incredible orunreliable as a matter of law (see Matterof Jamel G., 51 AD3d 918, 919 [2008]; Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 834 [2007]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392,393 [2005]; People v Lambert, 272 AD2d 413, 414 [2000]; Matter of Nikkia C.,187 AD2d 581, 582 [1992]). Such discrepancies and inconsistencies are matters to be consideredby the finder of fact in assessing a witness's credibility (see Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 834 [2007]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392,393 [2005]; People v Lambert, [*2]272 AD2d 413, 414[2000]). Resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder offact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded greatdeference on appeal (see Matter ofJamel G., 51 AD3d 918, 919-920 [2008]; Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 834 [2007]; Matter of RyanW., 143 AD2d 435, 436 [1988]; cf.People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factualreview power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of theevidence (cf. People v Romero, 7NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Florio and McCarthy, JJ., concur.