Opinion
November 3, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding order. Issues of credibility, and the weight to be accorded to evidence presented, are primarily for the trier of fact who saw and heard the witnesses, and whose determination is entitled to great weight on appeal (Matter of William J., 203 A.D.2d 144). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to disturb the fact-finding determination.
We reject appellant's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the juvenile delinquency petition was jurisdictionally deficient because the complainant's supporting deposition was notarized by a Notary Public whose notary stamp indicated that her commission had expired several months prior. Appellant did not contest the sufficiency of the verification for one and a half years and thus any infirmity in this regard must be deemed waived (Executive Law § 142-a).
Nor do we find merit to appellant's argument that the petition was jurisdictionally deficient because neither the court nor the Notary had preliminarily examined the six-year old complainant to determine his capacity to comprehend the nature of the oath on his written deposition. Although Family Court Act § 343.1 (2) precludes a child less than 12 years old from testifying under oath unless the court has determined that the child understands the nature of an oath, there is no similar prerequisite for a deposition that is to be used to support a delinquency petition (Matter of Edward B., 177 A.D.2d 319, 320, affd on other grounds 80 N.Y.2d 458; Matter of Henry M., 194 A.D.2d 606, lv granted 82 N.Y.2d 657, appeal withdrawn 83 N.Y.2d 963).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.