In re George N.B.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [3]). “Respondent failed to preserve for our review his contention that [Family Court] improperly acted as an advocate for [petitioner] by questioning a witness” (Matter of Aron B., 46 AD3d 1431, 1431 [2007]; see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887-888 [1982]; Matter of Yadiel Roque C., 17 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2005]), as well as his contention that the court erred in failing to order a probation investigation as required under Family Court Act § 351.1 (2) (see generally Matter of Michael A.M., 31 AD3d 1183 [2006]; Matter of Phillip D., 27 AD3d 1126 [2006]). We decline to review those contentions in the interest of justice (see generally Yadiel Roque C., 17 AD3d at 1457 1169). Contrary to respondent’s further contention, “the record establishes that, viewed in the totality of the proceedings, [respondent] received meaningful representation by his Law Guardian” (Matter of Jeffrey V., 82 NY2d 121, 126 [1993]; see Matter of Brian S.M., 309 AD2d 1224 [2003]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Fahey, Pine and Gorski, JJ.