Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petition, which was accompanied by the supporting deposition of the seven-year-old complainant, was sufficient on its face under the standards set forth in Family Court Act §§ 311.1 and 311.2. Any latent deficiency in the accusatory instrument would not provide a ground for mandatory dismissal under Family Court Act § 315.1 (1) (a) (see, Matter of Edward B., 80 N.Y.2d 458; cf., Matter of David T., 75 N.Y.2d 927).
Additionally, the hearing court properly found that the complainant understood the nature of the oath and could therefore testify as a sworn witness (see, People v McDaniel, 165 A.D.2d 817, 817-818). The evidence established that the twelve-year-old appellant's acts were perpetrated by the use of forcible compulsion, in view of the relative strength and size of the parties and the isolated circumstances under which the act occurred. Further, the petition sufficiently alleged such acts (see, People v Pace, 145 A.D.2d 834, 835, citing People v Bermudez, 109 A.D.2d 674).
We decline to consider in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction the issue that was first raised on appeal concerning the complainant's capacity to execute a sworn deposition in the absence of a predetermination that the complainant was competent to swear to the truth of its contents (see, Matter of Edward B., supra). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.