Ordered that the order of disposition and the fact-finding order are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the petition is dismissed.
The presentment agency concedes, and we agree, that the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was not sufficient to establish that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The appellant was not present when his cohort and the undercover officer negotiated the drug sale, nor was he present when the sale took place. Moreover, there was no proof that the appellant supplied the drugs or derived a profit from their sale ( see, People v. Reyes, 82 A.D.2d 925; People v. Kiser, 63 A.D.2d 707). Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted criminal facilitation in the fourth degree ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
O'Brien, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.