Opinion
May 22, 1989
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Friedman, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the fact-finding order was not against the weight of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 342.2; cf., CPL 470.15). Due deference must be accorded the determination of the hearing court in assessing the credibility of witnesses and resolving disputed questions of fact (see, e.g., Matter of Jonathan M., 138 A.D.2d 710; Matter of Angel R., 134 A.D.2d 265). The testimony of the arresting officer established that the appellant was an accomplice in the theft of a camera from Alexander's Department Store. The appellant's larcenous intent was inferable from the conduct observed by the officer, namely, the appellant's close proximity in space and time to the scene of the theft, the manner in which he looked all around as his companion took the camera from a display case and placed it in a bag, and his taking possession of the bag containing the camera as they proceeded to leave the store. Although the appellant's mere presence at the scene of the crime, even with knowledge of its perpetration, would not have rendered him accessorially liable (see, People v La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405, 412; People v Strawder, 124 A.D.2d 758), the prosecution's proof of intent based upon circumstantial evidence was sufficient. We find nothing in the record to persuade us to disturb the Family Court's adjudication. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.