| Matter of Christian W. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09659 [90 AD3d 1062] |
| December 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christian W., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), forrespondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Christian W.appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), datedJanuary 24, 2011, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 19, 2010,made after a hearing, finding that he committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, wouldhave constituted the crime of forcible touching, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent andplaced him on probation for a period of one year.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview (see Matter of Charles S., 41AD3d 484 [2007]; cf. CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792,793 [1987]; Matter of Imani Mc., 78AD3d 705, 706 [2010]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to support thefinding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crime of forcible touching (see Penal Law § 130.52). Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d617, 617-618 [2009]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see Matter ofAshley P., 74 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2010]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of theevidence (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d at1076). The discrepancies and inconsistencies between the then 13-year-old complainant's twosworn statements to the police were not of such a magnitude as to render his account of theincident incredible or unreliable (seePeople v Allen, 89 AD3d 741 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Chambers,JJ., concur.