Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention regarding legal sufficiency of the evidence ( see Matter of Bryan C., 23 AD3d 652; Matter of Ricky A., 11 AD3d 532, 533). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792; Matter of Dan H., 26 AD3d 438), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes charged, either personally or as an accessory ( cf. Penal Law § 20.00).
Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal ( see Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 934). Upon the exercise of our factual review power ( cf. CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence ( cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.