IN THE MATTER OF RAYMOND M

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A preponderance of the evidence supported the Family Court's determination that the appellant sexually abused and neglected his two daughters and derivatively neglected his son ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112; Matter of Shavar B., 7 AD3d 619). The out-of-court statements of the appellant's daughters and the appellant's own statement to the police corroborated each other ( see Matter of Nicole V., supra at 123-124 ; Matter of Victoria H., 255 AD2d 442; Matter of Latisha W., 221 AD2d 645).

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the element of intent to obtain sexual gratification could be inferred from the totality of the circumstances ( see Matter of Christopher T., 287 AD2d 336; see generally Matter of Kenny O., 276 AD2d 271, 272; Matter of Gregory W., 266 AD2d 221). In addition, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in drawing a negative inference against the appellant upon his failure to testify at the hearing ( see Matter of Joseph C., 297 AD2d 673).