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 determinations concerning credibility, including its acceptance of the officer's testimony as to appellant's tumultuous behavior. After appellant caused a disturbance on a busy subway platform, he refused to comply with an officer's directives to quiet down and state what school he attended, screamed, cursed, and struggled with the officer. The evidence established that, by attempting to restore order, the officer was performing an official function within the meaning of Penal Law § 195.05, and that appellant acted with the requisite intent under that statute ( see Matter of Ismaila M., 34 AD3d 373, Iv denied 8 NY3d 808; Matter of Quaniqua W., 25 AD3d 380).