DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( cf. CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the determinations made in the fact-finding orders ( see Matter of Stafford B., 187 A.D.2d 649, 650; cf. People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see Matter of Dennis G., 294 A.D.2d 501; Matter of Stafford B., supra; cf. People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see Matter of Dennis G., supra; Matter of Stafford B., supra; cf. People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence ( cf. CPL 470.15).
The appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel rests primarily on matter which is dehors the record and therefore, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v. Boyd, 244 A.D.2d 497). To the extent that we are able to review the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find that the performance of the appellant's assigned Law Guardian met the standard of meaningful representation ( cf. People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
The appellant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit.
SMITH, J.P., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.