Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the speedy trial provisions of the Family Court Act were violated is untimely (see, Family Ct Act § 332.2; § 332.1 [8]; § 340.1 [1]; Matter of Brian S., 151 A.D.2d 577; see also, People v. Lawrence, 64 N.Y.2d 200), and we decline to consider the merits.
We reject the appellant's claim that his counsel's failure to raise a speedy trial objection constituted ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Christian, 155 A.D.2d 923; see generally, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
Moreover, viewing the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in a light most favorable to the Presentment Agency (cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the adjudication of guilt. The complainant knew the appellant and his family from the neighborhood and at the time of the incident, the two boys were in a dispute over a bicycle. Any inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony were primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact (cf., People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94), and its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15).
We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contentions and find that they are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. Ritter, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.