| Matter of Friday M. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03194 [94 AD3d 1120] |
| April 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Friday M., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth S. Natrella and LisaA. Giunta of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Friday M.appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated June29, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that he had committed acts which, if committed by anadult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree and attempted grandlarceny in the fourth degree, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated August 18,2011, which, upon the fact-finding order, and after a dispositional hearing, adjudged him to be ajuvenile delinquent and conditionally discharged him for a period of 12 months.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition, and isbrought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
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 Steven L., 86AD3d 613, 613-614 [2011]; Matterof Ivan O., 66 AD3d 904, 905 [2009]; cf. CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter ofDavid H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]) tosupport the finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, wouldhave constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree (see Penal Law §160.10 [1]) and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree (see Penal Law§§ 110.00, 155.30 [6]).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight ofthe evidence (see Matter of Steven L., 86 AD3d at 614; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Jamel C., 92 AD3d 782 [2012]; cf. People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]). Upon reviewingthe record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was notagainst the weight of the [*2]evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]). The discrepancies and inconsistencies between the then 13-year-old complainant's swornstatement and hearing testimony were not of such a magnitude as to render his account of theincident incredible or unreliable (seeMatter of Christian W., 90 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2011]; People v Allen, 89 AD3d 741[2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 881 [2012]). Moreover, the evidence of the appellant'sconduct before, during, and after the acts established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he acted inconcert to commit the charged acts (see Matter of Jamel C., 92 AD3d at 783; Matter of Geovanny V., 82 AD3d993, 994 [2011]; Matter ofJonathan V., 43 AD3d 470, 471 [2007]). Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Lott and Miller, JJ.,concur.