PETER B. SKELOS

David Laniado, Cedarhurst, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Tahirih Sadrieh of counsel; Michelle Fox on the brief), for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (McElrath, J.), dated September 21, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that he sexually abused the subject child, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated March 7, 2012, which, upon the fact-finding order, and after a dispositional hearing, placed the father under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of six months, pursuant to stated terms and conditions.

ORDERED that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the father under supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of six months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of supervision has expired; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child has been abused or neglected ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[b][i] ). A child's out-of-court statements may form the basis for a finding of abuse or neglect if they are sufficiently corroborated by other evidence tending to support their reliability ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1046[a][vi]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 123, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914;Matter of Alexander M. [Benjamin M.], 88 A.D.3d 794, 930 N.Y.S.2d 893), and the Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child's out-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse or neglect have been reliably corroborated ( see Matter of Christina F., 74 N.Y.2d 532, 536, 549 N.Y.S.2d 643, 548 N.E.2d 1294;Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d at 119, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914;Matter of Kassandra V. [Sylvia L.], 90 A.D.3d 940, 941, 935 N.Y.S.2d 607).

Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court's determination that he sexually abused the subject child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The subject child's out-of-court statement that her father had committed acts of sexual abuse upon her was corroborated by the testimony of an expert in clinical and forensic psychology, with a specialization in child abuse, who evaluated the subject child, and concluded that she exhibited behavior indicative of sexual abuse ( see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d at 120–122, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914;Matter of Kassandra V. [Sylvia L.], 90 A.D.3d at 941, 935 N.Y.S.2d 607;Matter of Andrew W. [Randolph A.W.], 83 A.D.3d 727, 919 N.Y.S.2d 890;Matter of Amber B., 39 A.D.3d 743, 832 N.Y.S.2d 449).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.