Opinion
October 23, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's actions in commencing the fact-finding hearing and subsequently granting a motion for a continuance did not deprive him of his right to a speedy hearing, inasmuch as the hearing was commenced within the statutory time limit of Family Court Act § 340.1 (1) (see, Matter of Robert B., 187 A.D.2d 347; Matter of Raymond B., 160 A.D.2d 936; Matter of Jeffrey V., 185 A.D.2d 240, affd 82 N.Y.2d 121).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; Matter of Stafford B., 187 A.D.2d 649), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding order since it overwhelmingly established the appellant's knowing participation in the incident (see, e.g., Matter of Andre L., 207 A.D.2d 348; Matter of Karriem E., 206 A.D.2d 476; People v. Taylor, 203 A.D.2d 77; People v. Moses, 162 A.D.2d 311; People v. Crutchfield, 149 A.D.2d 857). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94; Matter of Stafford B., supra). Its determination is accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Jermaine T., 150 A.D.2d 702). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court's determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15).
Finally, we agree with the presentment agency that any error committed during the cross-examination of the appellant was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against him (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Castillo, 215 A.D.2d 574). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.