| Matter of Cristian C. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02072 [104 AD3d 941] |
| March 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Cristian C., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] David L. Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Allan Y. Drian of counsel), forrespondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, CristianC. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch,J.), dated January 27, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court datedSeptember 12, 2011, made after a hearing, finding that he committed acts which, ifcommitted by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual abuse in the firstdegree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and, upon his consent, placed him onprobation for a period of two years under stated terms and conditions, including directinghim to undergo sex offender-specific therapy. This appeal brings up for review thefact-finding order dated September 12, 2011.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as, upon hisconsent, placed the appellant on probation for a period of two years, under stated termsand conditions, including directing him to undergo sex offender-specific therapy, isdismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The appellant is not aggrieved by that part of the order of disposition which placedhim on probation for a period of two years under stated terms and conditions, includingdirecting him to undergo sex offender-specific therapy, since he waived his right to adispositional hearing and consented to the disposition (see Matter of Khalil H., 80AD3d 83, 93 [2010]; Matter of Kemar G., 72 AD3d 965, 966 [2010]; Matter of Shaheen P.J., 29AD3d 996, 997 [2006]).
The appellant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review (see Matter ofDanasia Mc., 94 AD3d 1122, 1123 [2012]; Matter of Kalexis R., 79 AD3d 755, 756 [2010]; Matter of Anthony R., 43AD3d 939, 939-940 [2007]; cf. CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing theevidence at the fact-finding hearing in the light most favorable to the presentment agency(see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Kemar G.,72 AD3d at 965; Matter ofSummer D., 67 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2009]; Matter of Davonte B., 44 AD3d 763 [2007]), we find thatit was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellantcommitted acts, which, if committed by [*2]an adult,would have constituted the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree (see PenalLaw § 130.65 [1]; seegenerally People v Jessup, 90 AD3d 782, 783-784 [2011]). Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Clarissa S., 83AD3d 1083, 1084 [2011]; cf. People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-findingdeterminations were not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct Act§ 342.2 [2]; Matter ofCharles S., 41 AD3d 484, 486 [2007]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson,Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.