Opinion
April 20, 1998
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, 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, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the acts alleged in the petition ( cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The fact that there were minor inconsistencies between the identification testimony of the complainant as to the height and weight of the appellant and the appellant's actual appearance did not render the identification incredible as a matter of law ( see, Matter of Jonitta C., 213 A.D.2d 248). The hearing court was in the best position to assess the complainant's credibility, as it saw and heard his testimony first hand ( cf., People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94), and its assessment of the complainant's credibility should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record ( cf., People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88).
Furthermore, contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court did not improperly limit the cross-examination of the presentment agency's sole witness. It is well settled that the scope of cross-examination rests largely in the sound discretion of the court ( see, Matter of Devanand S., 188 A.D.2d 533, 534). The defense counsel asked questions which had been previously asked and answered ( cf., People v. Gerace, 172 A.D.2d 688, 689), and he failed to establish a good-faith basis upon which he could proceed with an exploration into motive to fabricate ( see, People v. George, 197 A.D.2d 588, 589).
The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Pizzuto, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.