In re Imiya P.

Respondent Randall S.’s challenge to the disposition is moot, since the terms of the order, along with the agency supervision, have expired (see Matter of Kazmir K., 63 AD3d 522 [2009]; Matter of Lashina P., 52 AD3d 293, 293 [2008]).

Were we to consider the merits, we would find that the requirement that respondent complete a drug rehabilitation program was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including his own admission at fact-finding that he neglected the child by virtue of his drug use, and his failure to seek any treatment (see Matter of Jolie S., 298 AD2d 194 [2002]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.