IN RE: CHRISTINE L.M. (2007)

 Respondent appeals from an order finding that he willfully violated a prior order of child and spousal support and sentencing him to three weeks in jail.   Although his appeal is not moot merely because he has served his sentence (see Matter of Bickwid v. Deutsch, 87 N.Y.2d 862, 863, 638 N.Y.S.2d 932, 662 N.E.2d 250;  Matter of Moore v. Blank, 8 A.D.3d 1090, 1091, 778 N.Y.S.2d 370, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 606, 785 N.Y.S.2d 22, 818 N.E.2d 664), we nevertheless conclude that it lacks merit.   Based on the evidence before the Support Magistrate, we conclude that Family Court properly confirmed the finding that respondent willfully violated the prior order of support (see Matter of Hunt v. Hunt, 30 A.D.3d 1065, 815 N.Y.S.2d 866;  Matter of Rothfuss v. Thomas, 6 A.D.3d 1145, 1146, 775 N.Y.S.2d 657, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 603, 782 N.Y.S.2d 697, 816 N.E.2d 570).   There is a presumption that a respondent has sufficient means to support his or her spouse and minor children (see Family Ct. Act § 437;  Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 68-69, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154;  Hunt, 30 A.D.3d at 1065, 815 N.Y.S.2d 866), and the evidence that respondent failed to pay support as ordered constitutes “prima facie evidence of a willful violation” (§ 454[3] [a] ).   The burden then shifted to respondent to adduce “some competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments” (Powers, 86 N.Y.2d at 70, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984, 653 N.E.2d 1154;  see Hunt, 30 A.D.3d at 1065, 815 N.Y.S.2d 866), but he failed to meet that burden inasmuch as he failed to present evidence establishing that he made “reasonable efforts to obtain gainful employment to meet his ․ support obligations” (Matter of Fallon v. Fallon, 286 A.D.2d 389, 728 N.Y.S.2d 725;  see Hunt, 30 A.D.3d at 1065, 815 N.Y.S.2d 866).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: