Joseph R., Appellant.  (Appeal No. 1.) v. << (1998)

 Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of respondent for an examination of his son by his own expert (see, Matter of Jessica R., 78 N.Y.2d 1031, 1033–1034, 576 N.Y.S.2d 77, 581 N.E.2d 1332;  Matter of Stephanie A. [Kenneth A.], 224 A.D.2d 1027, 1028, 637 N.Y.S.2d 904, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 814, 651 N.Y.S.2d 15, 673 N.E.2d 1242).   The testimony of petitioner's expert was sufficient to corroborate the child's out-of-court statements (see, Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 121, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914;  Matter of Stephanie A. [Kenneth A.], supra, at 1028, 637 N.Y.S.2d 904), and the record is sufficient to support the court's finding that respondent sexually abused his son.   In light of the uncooperative and hostile attitude of respondent during the investigation, his lack of significant contact with his son prior to the abuse, the extent of the son's psychological damage and respondent's refusal to enter a sex offender treatment program, the court's order of protection, prohibiting respondent from having any contact with his son, is not an abuse of discretion.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: