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.