Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Mason

Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Mason 2015 NY Slip Op 07316 Decided on October 8, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 8, 2015
519859

[*1]In the Matter of COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, on Behalf of DENISE MASON, Respondent,

v

WILLIAM MASON, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.)



In the Matter of COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, on Behalf of DIANE JACOBS, Respondent, v

v

WILLIAM MASON, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Calendar Date: September 8, 2015
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ.

Matthew C. Hug, Troy, for appellant.

Robert J. Fitzsimmons, Columbia County Department of Social Services, Hudson (N. Daniel Reeder of William J. Better, PC, Kinderhook, of counsel), for respondent.

Egan Jr., J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Columbia County (Koweek, J.), entered September 24, 2014, which, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, among other things, committed respondent to jail for an aggregate of 180 days.

In 2013, petitioner commenced these proceedings alleging that respondent willfully violated two child support orders pertaining to two different children. A Support Magistrate [*2]thereafter found, upon respondent's consent, that he had willfully violated both child support orders. As to the first violation, the Support Magistrate determined that respondent owed $5,571.18 and recommended that he be incarcerated for 90 days. As to the second violation, the Support Magistrate determined that respondent owed $17,958.65 and recommended that he be incarcerated for 180 days. The Support Magistrate thereafter forwarded these findings and recommendations to Family Court for confirmation (see Family Ct Act § 439 [a]). In two orders, Family Court sentenced respondent to 90 days in jail on the first violation and 180 days in jail on the second violation, with the sentences to run concurrently. Respondent now appeals from both orders.[FN1]

Respondent's sole contention on appeal is that the sentences of incarceration imposed by Family Court were unduly harsh and excessive. However, inasmuch as respondent has served the terms of incarceration imposed, the appeals must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Muller v Muller, 90 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2011]; Matter of Lewis v Cross, 72 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2010]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Mason, 61 AD3d 1017, 1017 [2009]).

McCarthy, J.P., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Respondent's motion for a stay pending appeal was denied by a Justice of this Court.