DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish either that he restrained the complainant or the element of sexual gratification is unpreserved for appellate review as he failed to specifically raise these claims before the Family Court ( cf. CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of Frank C., 283 A.D.2d 643, 643-644), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the determination made in the fact-finding order. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses. Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see Matter of James B., 262 A.D.2d 480, 481). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the determination was not against the weight of the evidence ( cf. CPL 470.15).
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and MASTRO, JJ., concur.