The petition and supporting deposition allege that, at the time and place that the appellant possessed the aforementioned gravity knife, he also possessed a knife approximately 13 inches in length with an 8-inch blade. Given the large size of the knife and that the appellant possessed it concurrently with a gravity knife, which is statutorily defined as a "deadly weapon" (Penal Law § 10.00), the petition was facially sufficient to allege the appellant's possession of a "dangerous knife" (Penal Law § 265.01; see Matter of Patrick L., 244 AD2d 244, 246-247; Matter of Gilberto A., 237 AD2d 285). However, as the presentment agency correctly concedes, neither the petition nor the supporting deposition provided a sworn, nonhearsay allegation as to the appellant's age, which is an element of the delinquent act of unlawful possession of weapons by persons under the age of 16, as charged under counts three and four of the petition ( see Penal Law § 265.05).

25; People v. Crossland, 251 AD2d 509), and committed an act which constituted the crime of unlawful possession of a weapon by one under the age of 16 ( see Penal Law § 265.05; Matter of Gilberto A., 237 AD2d 285). The appellant's out of court confession that he fired a gun at a certain time and place was corroborated by the hearing testimony of the 12-year-old victim that she was shot at the identical time and place ( see Family Ct Act § 744 [b]; Matter of Carmelo E., 57 NY2d 431, 433; Matter of David B., 259 AD2d 986; cf. Matter of Geraldine D., 85 AD2d 574).

Moreover, while respondent was not found to have committed a violent act, his possession of a dangerous multi-bladed knife inside of a public school posed a threat of harm to school staff, other students and himself. The possession of weapons in school facilities is a matter of grave public concern ( e.g., Matter of Gilberto A., 237 AD2d 285; Matter of Rasean B., 7 AD3d 520; Matter of Uriel M., 4 Misc 3d 1011 (A), 2004 NY Slip Op 50849(U); see also, NYC Administrative Code § 10-134.1 (a) [legislative findings]), and it is essential to ensure that such behavior is not repeated by the respondent. Finally, since respondent's Law Guardian has indicated that he wishes to withdraw his motion at this time, the Court will mark the motion withdrawn.