In re Jose P.
The court‘s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court‘s credibility determinations. The counts indicated should have been dismissed as lesser included offenses. We have considered and rejected appellant‘s remaining claims regarding the fact-finding determination.
Probation was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant‘s needs and the community‘s need for protection (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Among other things, the underlying incident was a violent sexual attack, the record demonstrated that appellant was in need of a treatment program that could not be completed within the six-month duration of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, and there was little or no indication that appellant and his mother would voluntarily cooperate with treatment in the absence of court supervision. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Andrias and Richter, JJ.