Opinion
May 6, 1991
Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (De Maro, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We find no merit to the appellant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the proceeding because the presentment agency failed to present evidence that he was less than 16 years of age when he committed the acts alleged in the petition (see, Matter of Anthony J., 143 A.D.2d 668).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 793), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of petit larceny (see, Penal Law § 155.25), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see, Penal Law § 165.40), and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 165.05). The accomplice testimony herein was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence tending to connect the appellant with the commission of the crimes (see, People v Hudson, 51 N.Y.2d 233; People v Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624). Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.