Opinion
November 9, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Lauria, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant contends that the Family Court's finding was against the weight of the evidence because the complainant, in reporting the offense to her high school dean, did not advise him that the appellant was one of the group of teenagers who surrounded her and stole her jewelry. We disagree. The complainant unequivocally testified at the fact-finding hearing that the appellant participated in the offense, first by pointing her out to the group of teenagers who accosted her, and then by snatching three chains from around her neck. The Family Court credited the complainant's testimony, and rejected the appellant's argument that the complainant had provided an inconsistent version of the offense to her school dean. 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 fact-finder, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Moreover, since this case was tried before a court without a jury, the greatest respect must be accorded the determination of the hearing court in assessing the credibility of witnesses and resolving disputed questions of fact (Matter of Judah J., 182 A.D.2d 621, 622; Matter of Nikim A., 179 A.D.2d 638; Matter of Bernard J., 171 A.D.2d 794; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the court's determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.