DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the parents' contention, the Family Court possessed sufficient information to render an informed determination consistent with the child's best interests ( see Matter of Bogdan v. Bogdan, 291 A.D.2d 909; Skidelsky v. Skidelsky, 279 A.D.2d 356; Matter of Porter v. Burgey, 266 A.D.2d 552; Matter of Davis v. Davis, 265 A.D.2d 552; Matter of Vangas v. Ladas, 259 A.D.2d 755). The child, age 16 at the time of the hearing, was of sufficient maturity such that his preference not to live with his parents and to study at a school he chose was entitled to great weight ( see Matter of Benitez v. Llano, 39 N.Y.2d 758; Matter of Chase v. Reome, 289 A.D.2d 894; Guzzo v. Greco, 66 A.D.2d 833). Notably, the Law Guardian was of the view that guardianship should be awarded to the petitioner, a nonrelative who had befriended and taken excellent care of the child.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.