Evidence at fact-finding was that respondent was one of a group of youths obstructing pedestrian traffic; that when a police officer asked respondent and the other youths to move on, respondent refused and directed four letter vulgarities at the officer; that when the officer asked respondent to move a second time, respondent again refused and used vulgarities; and that when the officer then attempted to arrest respondent for disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20), respondent resisted arrest, punched the officer in the shoulder and fled. Upon these facts, there is no merit to respondent's contention that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct (see, People v. Todaro, 26 N.Y.2d 325, 328-329). Thus, even though respondent could not be charged with disorderly conduct, a violation, being under the age of 16 at the time (Family Ct Act § 301.2), he could be charged with resisting arrest. However, the fact-finding against respondent with respect to attempted assault in the third degree should be vacated, the evidence that he hit the officer only once, in the shoulder, being insufficient to show that he intended to cause physical impairment or substantial injury (see, Matter of Philip A., 49 N.Y.2d 198).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.