Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793; Matter of Daniel R., 51 AD3d 933, 934; Matter of Shariff A., 28 AD3d 546, 547; Matter of Tiffany M., 24 AD3d 556; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Family Ct Act § 342.2; Matter of Jonathan H., 39 AD3d 856, 857; see also Matter of Jamal V, 159 AD2d 507; Matter of Angel R., 134 AD2d 265, 266; cf. People v Newton, 46 NY2d 877, 879).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( cf. CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see Matter of Daniel R., 51 AD3d 933, 934; Matter of Shariff A., 28 AD3d at 547; Matter of Tiffany M., 24 AD3d at 556; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 342.2; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645).