IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY S

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant did not preserve the issue of legal sufficiency of the evidence for appellate review (cf. CPL 470.05; see People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant's conduct, which occurred on what the appellant knew to be school property and included throwing two punches toward the face of the complainant, an Assistant Principal, and scratching her under the eye, was committed with the intent to cause physical injury (see Penal Law §§ 10.00, 110.00, 120.05[a]; Matter of Marcel F., 233 A.D.2d 442). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual power of review, we are satisfied that the Family Court properly credited the testimony of the presentment agency's witnesses, and that its findings were not against the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.