| People v Fusco |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00055 [91 AD3d 984] |
| Jnury 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JennieFusco, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kevin C. Kortright, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Katherine G. Henley of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan,J.), rendered November 19, 2010, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentenceof incarceration.
In 2009, defendant was convicted of petit larceny and sentenced to three years of probation.Defendant was also ordered to pay restitution, jointly and severally with her husband, acodefendant, totaling $6,775.78. Restitution was to be paid in 29 monthly payments beginning inJune 2009. In September 2010, defendant was $1,156.76 in arrears in her payments and a petitionalleging a violation of the terms of her probation was filed. Following a hearing, County Courtfound a violation, revoked defendant's probation and resentenced her to eight months in jail, withthe unpaid restitution remaining as part of her sentence. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
We reject defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion in revoking herprobation and imposing a term of incarceration. Defendant testified that, although she admittedlyhad failed to make the required monthly payments, she had worked out an agreement with herprobation officer that she could make up for her failure by making subsequent double paymentswithout being in violation of her probation. However, her probation officer denied that such an[*2]agreement existed. It is well settled that a violation ofprobation proceeding is summary in nature, and County Court's credibility determinations thereatare entitled to great deference (seePeople v DeMarco, 60 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2009]). Inasmuch as defendant admittedduring the hearing that she had violated a condition of her probation, we find that County Court'sfinding of a violation was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see CPL 410.70[3]; People v Bender, 24 AD3d819, 820 [2005]; People vParsons, 15 AD3d 728, 728 [2005]). Accordingly, County Court was authorized torevoke defendant's probation and sentence her for the original crime (see CPL 410.70 [5];People v Costanza, 36 AD3d829, 830 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 945 [2007]). Because defendant has completedher sentence, her claim that her jail sentence was harsh and excessive is moot (see People v Mainville, 78 AD3d1421, 1422 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 833 [2011]; People v Buskey, 62 AD3d 1164,1165 [2009]).
Defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and are found to be without merit.
Spain, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.