Opinion
2012-12-13
In the Matter of ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT, on Behalf of Sarah L. GRIFFITH, Respondent, v. David L. GRIFFITH, Appellant.
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant. Amy V. Casiuk, St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Canton, for respondent.
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant. Amy V. Casiuk, St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Canton, for respondent.
Before: ROSE, J.P., LAHTINEN, SPAIN, KAVANAGH and McCARTHY, JJ.
LAHTINEN, J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Morris, J.), entered April 2, 2012, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 4, to revoke respondent's suspended sentence of incarceration.
Following respondent's failure to pay ordered child support, petitioner commenced a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 4 seeking to find respondent in willful violation of the court's order and have him incarcerated for contempt. The record indicates that, in 2006, respondent was found to be in willful violation of his obligation to pay child support and, at that time a 30–day jail sentence was suspended. In an October 2007 order, that suspension was vacated and respondent was committed to serve a period of 10 days in jail with the remaining 20 days of the sentence suspended. Subsequently, as a result of respondent's continued noncompliance, further applications by petitioner were made to Family Court for relief, with the most recent order continuing the suspended 20–day jail sentence entered on July 1, 2009. That order directed respondent to pay $50 per week towards the accumulated child support arrears. No appeal was taken from that order.
Thereafter, alleging that respondent had stopped making payments pursuant to the July 2009 order, petitioner applied to Family Court in November 2011 for an order revoking respondent's suspended sentence of incarceration. Following an April 2, 2012 hearing, at which respondent was represented by counsel, the court revoked the suspension and directed that respondent be immediately committed to jail to serve the 20–day jail term. This appeal followed.
Inasmuch as respondent's appeal is from the order revoking the suspension of his sentence and, according to petitioner, his 20–day jail term has already been served, we conclude that the instant appeal is moot and must be dismissed ( see Matter of Franklin County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Durant, 54 A.D.3d 1139, 1140, 865 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2008];Matter of St. Lawrence County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Pratt, 24 A.D.3d 1050, 806 N.Y.S.2d 309 [2005],lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 713, 816 N.Y.S.2d 748, 849 N.E.2d 971 [2006] ).
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.