Ordered that the order of commitment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and a new determination thereafter on the issue of the father's ability to pay his child support obligations.
In the absence of proof of an ability to pay, an order of commitment for willful violation of a support order may not stand ( see Yeager v Yeager, 38 AD3d 534, 535; Matter of Kainth v Kainth, 36 AD3d 915, 916; Bisnoff v Bisnoff, 27 AD3d 606, 607; Matter of Riccio v Paquette, 284 AD2d 335; Family Ct Act § 455). The father's ability to pay was not adequately explored at the hearing. The order of commitment was, therefore, improperly made. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and a new determination thereafter on the issue of the father's ability to pay his child support obligations ( see Matter of Riccio v Paquette, 284 AD2d at 335). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.