Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of Charles S., 41 AD3d 484, 485), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( cf. CPL 470.15; see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( cf. People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determinations were not against the weight of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 342.2; Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771; Matter of Victor I., 57 AD3d 779; see also Matter of Robert A., 57 AD3d 770).