Opinion
May 8, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Greenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
The portion of the dispositional order as granted the order of protection was entered on consent and the underlying finding of sexual abuse is not being challenged on this appeal. The order of disposition is, therefore, not appealable (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Kalisha A.] v Diognes T., 208 A.D.2d 844). Furthermore, the portion of the dispositional order which granted the order of protection has been superseded by subsequent orders of protection from which no appeals have been taken (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Kalisha A.] v Diognes T., supra; see also, Matter of F. Children, 199 A.D.2d 81; Matter of Maritza B., 164 A.D.2d 838).
If we were to reach the merits of the appellant's contention that the court erred in failing to hold a dispositional hearing before it entered the order of protection, we would affirm. The appellant consented to the entry of so much of the dispositional order as granted the order of protection, and a full fact-finding hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1044 was held. Thus, the court did not err in dispensing with a dispositional hearing before entering the order of protection (see, e.g., Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Kalisha A.] v Diognes T., supra; Matter of Katrina W., 171 A.D.2d 250, 256-257, cert denied sub nom. Matter of Rosalyn W., 506 U.S. 876; cf., Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. [Michael V.] v James M., 83 N.Y.2d 178). Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.