Matter of Victor M., 2019 NY Slip Op 00600 [168 AD3d 1059]

January 30, 2019

Appellate Division, Second Department

[*1]

In the Matter of Victor M., Appellant.

George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, NY, for appellant.

James M. Fedorchak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Victor A. Civitillo of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, Victor M. appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Denise M. Watson, J.), dated September 14, 2017. The order, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, adjudged the appellant to be a person in need of supervision and directed that he be placed on probation under the supervision of the Dutchess County Office of Probation and Community Corrections for a period of 12 months.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed Victor M. on probation under the supervision of the Dutchess County Office of Probation and Community Corrections for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further, Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition that placed the appellant on probation under the supervision of the Dutchess County Office of Probation and Community Corrections for a period of 12 months has expired by its own terms. Therefore, the appeal from that portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition must be dismissed as academic ( see Matter of Alexandria P. , 166 AD3d 781 [2018]; Matter of Shakeel Mc. , 67 AD3d 913 [2009]).

We agree with the Family Court’s determination that the appellant is a person in need of supervision. The presentment agency proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was habitually truant during the 2015-2016 school year by presenting the testimony of a school attendance teacher and the appellant’s attendance records ( see Matter of Alexander C. , 83 AD3d 1058 , 1059 [2011]; Matter of Shakeel Mc. , 67 AD3d 913 [2009]; Matter of Toni Ann O. , 56 AD3d 563 , 564 [2008]; Matter of Joel P. , 16 AD3d 511 , 512 [2005]). There is no basis to disturb the court’s determination to credit the presentment agency’s evidence and to discount the appellant’s testimony ( see Matter of Serenity S. [Tyesha A.] , 89 AD3d 737 , 738 [2011]; Matter of Shamasia M. , 4 AD3d 359 , 361 [2004]; Matter of Shena SS. , 263 AD2d 809, 810 [1999]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Scheinkman, P.J., Rivera, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur..