Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent argues that the validation testimony of petitioner's expert was insufficient to corroborate the children's out-of-court statements and thus that the corroboration requirement in Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) was not met. Even assuming, arguendo, that the validation testimony was insufficient in this case, we conclude that the statement of each victim cross-corroborates the statement of the other victim, thereby satisfying the statutory corroboration requirement (see, Matter of Francis Charles W., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 124; see also, Matter of Scott X., 184 A.D.2d 866, 868). We have reviewed respondent's remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit.