Respondent's challenge to the dispositional part of the order has been rendered moot by the expiration of the terms of the order ( see Matter of Taisha R., 14 AD3d 410). The denial of his motion for recusal is not appealable as of right ( see Family Ct Act § 1112).
The finding that respondent neglected the child was supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [b] [i]), including a social work expert's testimony based on independent observations of the child, the child's statements to the expert corroborating her prior, consistent, independently recalled out-of-court statements ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]), and the child's statement s to an agency caseworker and a family friend ( see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 124; Matter of Pearl M., 44 AD3d 348, 349; Matter of R./B. Children, 256 AD2d 96; Matter of Najam M., 232 AD2d 281, 282).
We have considered the respondent father's remaining arguments and find them without merit.