Opinion
09-14-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mary E. STABLER, Appellant.
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), for appellant. John M. Muehl, District Attorney, Cooperstown (Michael F. Getman of counsel), for respondent.
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), for appellant.
John M. Muehl, District Attorney, Cooperstown (Michael F. Getman of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ.
GARRY, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Burns, J.), rendered April 24, 2015, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 410.90 for termination of a sentence of probation.
In 2011, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, waived her right to appeal and was sentenced, in accordance with her plea agreement, to five years of probation. In January 2015, defendant subsequently moved to terminate her sentence of probation (see CPL 410.90 ) and, following a hearing, County Court denied defendant's motion. Defendant now appeals.
Although defendant's notice of appeal contains a typographical error setting forth the incorrect date of the order appealed from, we overlook this inaccuracy and treat the notice of appeal as valid (see CPL 460.10 [b]; People v. Van Hoesen, 145 A.D.3d 1183, 1184 n., 44 N.Y.S.3d 212 [2016] ).
--------
Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that County Court abused its discretion in denying her motion to terminate her probation (see CPL 410.90[3] ). Defendant concedes, however, that her term of probation expired in March 2016; accordingly, her appeal has been rendered moot (see People v. Cancer, 132 A.D.3d 1021, 1022, 17 N.Y.S.3d 786 [2015] ; People v. Rodwell, 122 A.D.3d 1065, 1068, 996 N.Y.S.2d 398 [2014], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1170, 15 N.Y.S.3d 302, 36 N.E.3d 105 [2015] ). Moreover, we find unavailing defendant's contention that this case falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot.
MCCARTHY, J.P., ROSE, DEVINE and CLARK, JJ., concur.