Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in directing him to pay restitution ( see Matter of Daytrill H., 32 AD3d 736; Matter of Antonio M., 214 AD2d 571).
The appellant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that his mother's allocution was defective since he did not move to withdraw his admission on this ground ( see Family Ct Act § 321.3; Matter of Nicholas R., 36 AD3d 923; Matter of Ricky A., 11 AD3d 532, 533; Matter of Brandon S., 305 AD2d 609, 610).
Since the appellant did not challenge the validity of the order of protection at the dispositional hearing, his challenge to the order of protection is also unpreserved for appellate review ( cf. People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316; People v Goldberg, 16 AD3d 519, 520).