Opinion
Argued April 29, 1999
June 14, 1999
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.), dated May 18, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated March 13, 1998, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth for a period of three years. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 13, 1998, and the denial of that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.
Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Alan Beckoff of counsel), for respondent.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The complainant's identification of the appellant from a photographic array was not unduly suggestive merely because the detective had previously informed the complainant that a suspect was in custody ( cf., People v. Mack, 243 A.D.2d 731).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed the charged acts ( see, Matter of Tyrell A., 249 A.D.2d 467; cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Moreover, the hearing court's determination was not against the weight of the evidence. 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 trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see, Matter of Joan P., 245 A.D.2d 381). The complainant's contradicted testimony as to when he reported the crime did not detract from the strength of his testimony as to his identification of the appellant and the appellant's role and actions in this incident ( see, Matter of Tyrell A., supra; Matter of Richard X., 226 A.D.2d 762; Matter of Andre A., 185 A.D.2d 810).