The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the court's determinations concerning credibility. The sexual gratification element (Penal Law § 130.00[3]) could be readily inferred from appellant's conduct itself, for which he provided no credible explanation (see, Matter of James OO, 234 A.D.2d 822, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 812).
The court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to permit appellant to introduce certain of the reputation evidence he proffered, since appellant did not lay a proper foundation for that evidence. In any event, were we to find this ruling to be in error, we would find it harmless because appellant was permitted to introduce other reputation evidence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.