Opinion
January 19, 1999.
Appeal from the Family Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Family Court did not err in receiving hearsay evidence at the dispositional hearing. It has been held that hearsay evidence is admissible at a dispositional hearing as long as it is material and relevant ( see, People ex rel. Cusano v. Leone, 43 N.Y.2d 665, 668, n 2; Matter of Nathan M., 56 A.D.2d 554; Family Ct Act § 745 [a]). The challenged hearsay in the instant case met that standard since it demonstrated why the appellant was not a suitable candidate for home supervision.
To the extent that the appellant contends that the Family Court failed to impose the least restrictive available disposition, his contentions are academic since the dispositional order has expired pursuant to its terms ( see, Matter of Randy SS., 226 A.D.2d 799; Matter of C. Children, 169 A.D.2d 481).
Miller, J.P., Thompson, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.