Ordered that the amended order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The evidence, viewed in totality, revealed that the appellant's attorney provided meaningful representation (see, People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 186).
The Family Court properly applied a preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, since probation revocation in juvenile delinquency proceedings is dispositional in nature and not part of the adjudicatory process (see, Family Ct Act § 350.3; § 360.3 Fam. Ct. Act; Matter of Amanda RR., 230 A.D.2d 451; Matter of Alpheaus M., 168 A.D.2d 208; Matter of Gregory M., 131 Misc.2d 942). This conclusion is supported by CPL 410.70 (3), which prescribes a preponderance of the evidence standard for adult probation violation proceedings.
The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Joy and McGinity, JJ., concur.