Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792; Matter of Rosario S., 18 AD3d 563), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence ( see Matter of Rosario S., supra).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, based on the facts of this case, the Family Court properly applied the so-called automobile presumption ( see Penal Law § 265.15). The firearm was found in the glove compartment of a car. Therefore, the "upon the person" exception to that statutory presumption did not apply because there was no clear-cut evidence that the weapon was on another's person or in another's exclusive possession before the appellant's arrest ( id.; cf. People v. Velez, 83 NY2d 921, 923-924; People v. Lemmons, 40 NY2d 505, 511-512; People v. O'Brien, 212 AD2d 741, 742; People v. Scott, 199 AD2d 436).
The appellant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( cf. People v. Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245) and, in any event, is without merit.