Opinion
January 10, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Palmer, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
At the hearing on the appellant's motion to set aside the fact-finding order, the appellant's counsel conceded that he was then unable to locate the witness "Michael" and that he had no witness to provide newly-discovered evidence. Since the appellant cannot establish "a substantial change of circumstances" (Family Ct Act § 355.1) based upon "newly discovered evidence" (see, e.g., CPL 440.10 [g]; 440.30 [6]), the Family Court properly denied his motion to set aside the fact-finding order.
The appellant's argument that the Family Court erred in granting the presentment agency's request for an adjournment of the first day of the fact-finding hearing without adequately stating its reasons for granting the request (see, Family Ct Act § 340.1) has not been preserved for appellate review since he did not object to the adjournment on that ground (see, Matter of Ralph D., 163 A.D.2d 752; Family Ct Act § 1118; CPLR 5501 [a]).
In view of the appellant's prior arrest record (four of which involved some level of violence and/or involvement with guns) and the court psychologist's evaluation that the appellant presented a risk to the community, it cannot be said that the disposition was an improvident exercise of discretion. Balletta, J.P., Miller, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.