Opinion
November 16, 1998
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Elkins, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the orders of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the orders of disposition dated August 25, 1997, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of protection dated August 25, 1997, is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the words "until age 21" and substituting therefor the words "until age 18"; as so modified, that order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The determination by the Family Court that the appellant father had sexually abused Victoria H. and Danielle H. is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1). The children's out-of-court statements corroborated each other ( see, Matter of Francis Charles W., Jr., 71 N.Y.2d 112; Matter of Latisha W., 221 A.D.2d 645). Their statements were further corroborated by, inter alia, Victoria's reenactment of the sexual abuse incidents with anatomically correct dolls ( see, Matter of Linda P. v. Thomas P., 240 A.D.2d 583; Matter of Ashley M., 235 A.D.2d 858; Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Laura C.], 232 A.D.2d 635; Matter of Josephine G., 218 A.D.2d 656), testimony that both girls had age-inappropriate knowledge of sexual matters ( see, Matter of J.S., 215 A.D.2d 213; Matter of Erick R., 166 A.D.2d 161), and testimony that both girls had engaged in behavior typical of abused children ( see, Matter of Linda P. v. Thomas P., supra). The abuse of Danielle H. was also corroborated by medical evidence. We further note that the finding of abuse as to each child justified a finding of derivative neglect as to each child ( see, Matter of Child Protective Servs. [Darnell Mc.], 230 A.D.2d 733).
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in prohibiting the appellant from having contact with the children unless approved by the children's therapist ( see, Family Ct Act § 1082; see also, Matter of Fatima H., 226 A.D.2d 376; cf., Matter of Hughes v. Wiegman, 150 A.D.2d 449). However, the order of protection was improperly extended until the children reached the age of 21 ( see, Family Ct Act § 1056; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Kanisha W.], 233 A.D.2d 325).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.