Commissioner of Social Services Ex Rel. Mason v. Mason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioner of Social Services Ex Rel. Mason v. Mason

132 A.D.3d 1040, 17 N.Y.S.3d 328

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 8, 2015

Docket519897/519898

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 1040 (Commissioner of Social Services Ex Rel. Mason v. Mason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commissioner of Social Services Ex Rel. Mason v. Mason, 132 A.D.3d 1040, 17 N.Y.S.3d 328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Egan Jr., J.

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 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. *

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]).

*1041 McCarthy, J.P., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

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

*

Respondent’s motion for a stay pending appeal was denied by a Justice of this Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Egan Jr., J.

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 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. *

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]).

*1041 McCarthy, J.P., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

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

*

Respondent’s motion for a stay pending appeal was denied by a Justice of this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 1040, 17 N.Y.S.3d 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-social-services-ex-rel-mason-v-mason-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack