Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject child with a maternal aunt and placed the father under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as those portions of the order of disposition expired by their own terms; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1). "[P]revious statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence, but if uncorroborated, such statements shall not be sufficient to make a fact-finding of abuse or neglect. Any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the previous statements . . . shall be sufficient corroboration" (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]).
The Family Court has considerable discretion to decide whether a child's out-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse have, in fact, been reliably corroborated and whether the record as a whole supports such finding ( see Matter of Christina F., 74 NY2d 532, 536; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 119; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. [Joanne W.] v. Edyth W., 210 AD2d 328).
Here, the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the father sexually abused the subject child. The child provided consistent out-of-court statements regarding the abuse which were corroborated by the child's unsworn in-camera testimony. Under these circumstances, the Family Court acted well within its discretion in concluding that the child's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by her in-camera testimony ( see Matter of Christina F., supra at 537-538; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Zakheima M.] v. Lorenzo M., 239 AD2d 498).