Opinion
October 20, 1997
Appeal from the Family Court, Richmond County (Clark, 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 ( cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the acts with which he was charged. Although there were some inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, 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 ( cf., People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The greatest respect must be accorded the determination of the court in assessing the credibility of the witness and resolving disputed questions of fact ( see, Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507). The decision of the Family Court is accorded the same weight as that given to a jury verdict ( see, Matter of Bernard J., 171 A.D.2d 794). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court's findings of fact were not against the weight of the credible evidence ( cf., CPL 470.15).
The appellant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit ( see, Matter of James J., 160 A.D.2d 699, 700, affd 76 N.Y.2d 883).
Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.