Todd K., Respondent–Appellant. v. << (1999)

Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application of respondent for a further physical examination and psychological assessment of his 3 1/212-year-old daughter, Brandy, nor did the court err in denying respondent's request that Brandy either testify at trial or be interviewed in camera by the court (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., 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;  Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v. Joseph B., 207 A.D.2d 885, 616 N.Y.S.2d 646).   Contrary to respondent's contentions, the testimony of Brandy's physician is sufficient to corroborate Brandy's out-of-court statements (see, Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][vi];  Matter of Jessica N., 234 A.D.2d 970, 652 N.Y.S.2d 177, appeal dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 1008, 666 N.Y.S.2d 102, 688 N.E.2d 1384;  Matter of Estina W., 181 A.D.2d 554, 581 N.Y.S.2d 320), and the court's finding that Brandy was sexually abused by respondent is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct. Act § 1046[b];  Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 119, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914;  Matter of Stephanie B., 245 A.D.2d 1062, 667 N.Y.S.2d 174).   In light of respondent's hostile and uncooperative attitude, the court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting respondent from contacting his children and ordering that supervised visitation could occur only upon petitioner's recommendation, after respondent received counseling (see, Matter of Camron R., 251 A.D.2d 1073, 674 N.Y.S.2d 218).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: