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 denying his request to reopen the dispositional hearing for further testimony ( see People v Ventura, 35 NY2d 654, 655; People v McCloud, 305 AD2d 428, 428-429).
Moreover, under the facts of this case, including, inter alia, the recommendation in the probation report, the Family Court properly found that the "least restrictive [dispositional] alternative" was to place the appellant with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services in a limited-secure facility (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [a]; see Matter of Daniel J., 4 AD3d 475, 475-476).