Opinion
April 1, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition and the order of protection are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We find unpersuasive the appellant's contention that the Family Court's finding of sexual abuse was not supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence ( see, Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1). Here, the child's out-of-court statements concerning the abuse incident were properly corroborated by the testimony of the validator, which provided sufficient evidence upon which the court could base its determination ( see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112; Matter of Department of Social Servs. [Carol Ann D.] v. Warren D., 195 A.D.2d 460; Matter of Skye B., 185 A.D.2d 880; Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Carol Ann D.] v. Denise S., 173 A.D.2d 830; Matter of Sheikara G., 163 A.D.2d 69).
Similarly unavailing is the appellant's assertion that the court improperly directed him to undergo sex therapy as a precondition to his acquiring visitation rights with the child ( see, Matter of Tito G. v. Thelma G., 187 A.D.2d 651), inasmuch as the final order of protection imposes no such condition. Furthermore, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by prohibiting the appellant from having contact with the child ( see, Family Ct Act § 1082; see also, Matter of Hughes v. Wiegman, 150 A.D.2d 449). Balletta, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.