| Matter of Travis A. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02743 [105 AD3d 1041] |
| April 24, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Travis A., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo ofcounsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, theappeal is from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, SuffolkCounty (Whelan, J.), dated October 9, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that theappellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted thecrime of criminal sexual act in the first degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent,and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and FamilyServices until September 12, 2013.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
To the extent the appellant argues that the evidence was legally insufficient toestablish that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree under Penal Law §130.50 (3), that argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Jonathan F., 72AD3d 963 [2010]; Matterof John M.P., 54 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2008]). In any event, the argument iswithout merit since, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentmentagency (see Matter of Jonathan F., 72 AD3d at 964; Matter of Daniel R., 51 AD3d933, 934 [2008]), the evidence was legally sufficient to support the Family Court'sfact-finding determination. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence, this Court accords great deference tothe factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see Matter of MacyeMc., 82 AD3d 892, 894 [2011]; Matter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d 617 [2009]; Matter ofDaniel R., 51 AD3d at 934). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that theFamily Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence.Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.