Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
At the hearing on the appellant's motion to set aside the fact-finding order, the appellant's counsel conceded that he was then unable to locate the witness "Michael" and that he had no witness to provide newly-discovered evidence. Since the appellant cannot establish "a substantial change of circumstances" (Family Ct Act § 355.1) based upon "newly discovered evidence" (see, e.g., CPL 440.10 [g]; 440.30 [6]), the Family Court properly denied his motion to set aside the fact-finding order.
The appellant's argument that the Family Court erred in granting the presentment agency's request for an adjournment of the first day of the fact-finding hearing without adequately stating its reasons for granting the request (see, Family Ct Act § 340.1) has not been preserved for appellate review since he did not object to the adjournment on that ground (see, Matter of Ralph D., 163 A.D.2d 752; Family Ct Act § 1118; CPLR 5501 [a]).
In view of the appellant's prior arrest record (four of which involved some level of violence and/or involvement with guns) and the court psychologist's evaluation that the appellant presented a risk to the community, it cannot be said that the disposition was an improvident exercise of discretion. Balletta, J.P., Miller, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.