| Matter of Robert M. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02151 [71 AD3d 896] |
| March 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Robert M., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, 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 appeals arefrom (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Greenberg, J.), dated February23, 2009, which, after a hearing, found that the appellant committed acts which, if committed byan adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the second degree, and (2) an order ofdisposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated April 8, 2009, which, upon thefact-finding order and after a dispositional hearing, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent andplaced him on probation for a period of 18 months.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up forreview on the appeal from the order of disposition (cf. CPLR 5501); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To the extent that the appellant contends that the complainant's testimony was legallyinsufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt, that contentionis unpreserved for appellate review as he failed to raise that specific claim before the FamilyCourt (see Matter of Melissa N., 62AD3d 884, 884 [2009]; cf. CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewingthe evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Family Ct Act§ 342.2 [2]; Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792 [1987]; cf. People v Contes,60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the findings that theappellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime ofrobbery in the second degree. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d 617 [2009]; cf. CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Daniel R., 51 AD3d933 [2008]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US946 [2004]; [*2]People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-findingdetermination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §342.2 [2]; Matter of Darnell C., 66AD3d 771, 772 [2009]; cf. Peoplev Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Austin, JJ.,concur.