Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
At the fact-finding hearing, the presentment agency adduced testimony of the three complaining witnesses to the effect that the appellant called them "sluts" and yelled other vulgar and disparaging comments at them. The appellant then stood on a public street in full view of the complaining witnesses, exposed his penis, grabbed it, and waved it at them, and shouted "stare at this". Contrary to the appellant's contention, we find that this sexually offensive conduct went far beyond mere public nudity (cf., People v. Craft, 149 Misc.2d 223; People v. Hardy, 77 Misc.2d 1092; People v. Gilbert, 72 Misc.2d 75) and consisted of an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of public lewdness (see, Penal Law § 245.00 [a]; Matter of Paul R., 131 A.D.2d 764; People v. Darryl M., 123 Misc.2d 723; People v. Sullivan, 87 Misc.2d 254).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Accordingly, we discern no basis for disturbing the Family Court's determination (see, e.g., Matter of William T., 182 A.D.2d 766; Matter of Bernard J., 171 A.D.2d 794). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Lawrence, JJ., concur.