In re Malinda V.

—In two child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Hugh V., Sr., appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of (1) a dispositional order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated March 30, 1994, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated February 9, 1993, inter alia, directed him to enroll in and complete a program for sex offenders, and (2) a dispositional order of the same court, dated March 30, 1994, which, upon the fact-finding order of the same court, dated January 10, 1994, inter alia, directed him to enroll in and complete a program for sex offenders. The appeals bring up for review the fact-finding orders dated February 9, 1993, and January 10, 1994.

Ordered that the dispositional orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Absent a legal disqualification pursuant to Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 ; Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 AD2d 732 ). Here, the appellant failed to demonstrate that the court’s

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in requiring the appellant to enter a sex offenders program (see, Matter of Abby Gail E., 191 AD2d 696 ) nor in requiring him to enter therapy before he could have any form of visitation with his children (see, Matter of Esther CC., 194 AD2d 949 , 951; Matter of Nassau County Dept, of Social Servs. [Kimberly S.], 173 AD2d 830 ).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.