Opinion
December 12, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Sara Schechter, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the presentment agency ( Matter of Monique T., 194 A.D.2d 428), we find it sufficiently supports the fact-finding determination. Moreover, the findings were not against the weight of the evidence. Respondent's confession that he started the fire because he was cold and wanted to get the attention of hospital personnel, in addition to the circumstantial evidence presented, established that he intended to set the fire and to damage the building ( see, People v Reade, 13 N.Y.2d 42; People v Utsey, 182 A.D.2d 575, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 839). Issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded the evidence were for the finder of fact to determine. Its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal ( Matter of Monique T., supra), and we find no basis to disturb the subject determination.
It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to have admitted the videotape of the experiments conducted by the fire marshal since it was established that there was "substantial similarity" between the conditions under which the experiments were conducted and the conditions at the time of the event in question ( People v Cohen, 50 N.Y.2d 908, 910). "A variation in circumstances affects the weight of the evidence, but is not a basis for its exclusion" ( People v Mariner, 147 A.D.2d 659, 660, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 666).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.