Opinion
March 4, 1993
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Judith B. Sheindlin, J.).
Since the voir dire reveals that the child understood the nature of the oath, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the eight-year old victim to testify under oath (People v. Graham, 180 A.D.2d 438, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying respondent's application for a continuance to produce a witness in view of respondent's unsubstantiated assertion regarding the witness' unavailability. (Matter of B. Children, 168 A.D.2d 312.) Contrary to respondent's allegation, the admission of the testimony of the teaching assistant as to the changes in the victim's behavior and the victim's complaint that he had been sexually abused was not error (People v. Rice, 75 N.Y.2d 929, 931; People v. Smyers, 167 A.D.2d 773, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 967).
We have examined respondent's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.