Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the record supports the Family Court's determination that the complainant's identification of the appellant as one of the individuals who robbed him was merely confirmatory (see, People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445). While the complainant was obviously confused as to the year or years when he observed the appellant in junior high school, he was sufficiently familiar with the appellant based on the fact that they both attended that same school for at least a period of one year.
Moreover, for the six-month period preceding the robbery, both the complainant and the appellant attended the same high school and the complainant had occasionally seen the appellant in the hallways.
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.