We reject appellant's contention that the restrictive placement imposed upon him pursuant to Family Court Act § 353.5 (3), as a result of his active participation, with his cousin, in the robbery of a 67 year old complainant who sustained a fractured hip as a result thereof, violated appellant's equal protection rights or constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the United States or New York State Constitutions.
Initially, it should be noted that this Court cannot properly review appellant's claims on appeal due to appellant's failure to provide the minutes of the fact-finding and dispositional hearings as part of the record on appeal. (People v Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 320, rearg denied sub nom. People v Gasparik, 53 N.Y.2d 797; Block v Nelson, 71 A.D.2d 509, 512.) Moreover, appellant has failed to preserve his equal protection claim, as a matter of law, for appellate review. (People v Iannelli, 69 N.Y.2d 684, 685, cert denied 482 U.S. 914.)
Finally, the mandatory restrictive placement of a juvenile pursuant to Family Court Act § 353.5 (3) neither violated appellant's rights to equal protection under the law nor constituted cruel and unusual punishment since it was rational for the Legislature to have afforded juveniles who commit crimes of violence against the elderly disparate treatment from those who perpetrate crime against the general populace. (Matter of Quinton A., 49 N.Y.2d 328, 332; People v Jones, 39 N.Y.2d 694, 697.)
In any event, appellant's challenge to the restrictive portion of his placement, and attempt to receive a probationary term in lieu of secure placement, has been rendered moot by the fact that the appellant has already completed the two six-month periods in secure and residential placement directed in the dispositional order. (See, Matter of Barbara C., 64 N.Y.2d 866.)
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.