Opinion
December 11, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Suffolk County (Pach, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order entered June 13, 1994, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered January 31, 1995; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered June 13, 1994, directing psychological examinations is dismissed as abandoned and academic; and it is further,
Ordered that the fact-finding order entered January 31, 1995, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The Family Court's finding that the appellants locked their adolescent daughters in rooms and other areas of confinement and otherwise physically abused these children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1; Matter of Lillian R., 196 A.D.2d 503). Where, as here, the hearing court was confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight. We find no basis upon which to disturb the Family Court's determination of the issue (see, Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 778; Matter of Rockland County Dept. of Social Servs. [Kathryn B.], 186 A.D.2d 136, 137-138; Matter of Carine T., 183 A.D.2d 902, 903).
We reject the appellants' contention that they were deprived of their right to due process when the court rendered an order stating the grounds for its finding of neglect after the dispositional hearing. Although the better practice would have been for the Family Court to have stated the grounds at the same time that it made its finding of neglect and prior to the dispositional hearing (see, Family Ct Act § 1047 [a]; § 1051 [a]), we see no reason to disturb the Family Court's adjudication of neglect.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.