Opinion
April 6, 1998
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see, Matter of Sandy J., 246 A.D.2d 651), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conclusion that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the second degree (two counts). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of fact was not against the weight of the evidence ( cf., CPL 470.15; Matter of Adrian R., 239 A.D.2d 348).
We also find that on the facts in this record, the Family Court's determination that the appellant required a restrictive placement was supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see, Family Ct. Act § 353.5 Fam. Ct. Act [1]).
Also unavailing is the appellant's contention that the showup procedure was improper. The complainant's identification of the appellant was within seven minutes of the incident and within one block of the crime scene; therefore, the showup procedure was within acceptable bounds ( see, Matter of Brian D., 237 A.D.2d 355).
The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, Family Ct. Act § 1118 Fam. Ct. Act; CPLR 5501) or do not warrant reversal.
Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.