The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, including its evaluation of inconsistencies in testimony. The evidence established that appellant was not a bystander, but an active participant in the robbery.
The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied appellant's request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, and instead adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation. Given the seriousness of the underlying offense, this was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant's needs and the community's need for protection ( see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947).