DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated July 27, 1999, is dismissed as academic; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The defendant argues that the allegations contained in the original complaint were insufficient to support a cause of action for divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment, and that his motion to dismiss that complaint should have been granted. However, since the original complaint was superseded by an amended complaint, the sufficiency of the allegations contained in the original complaint is academic, and the proper course is to dismiss the appeal from the order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint (see, Chalasani v. Neuman, 64 N.Y.2d 879; Penato v. George, 42 N.Y.2d 908; Morris v. Goldstein, 22 3 A.D.2d 582; Smith v. Russell Sage Coll., 78 A.D.2d 913, affd 54 N.Y.2d 185; Bennett v. City of New York, 65 A.D.2d 731; Guibor v. Manhattan Eye, Ear Throat Hosp., 56 A.D.2d 359, affd 46 N.Y.2d 736; Halmar Distrs. v. Approved Mfg. Corp., 49 A.D.2d 841; Millard v. Delaware, Lackawanna Western R. R. Co., 204 AD 80; 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller N Y Civ Prac,. 3025.07; 6 Carmody-Wait 2d, N Y Prac § 34:10).
The Supreme Court properly entered a judgment against the defendant based on the unrebutted allegations that he failed to comply with the terms of the order dated March 19, 1999 (see, Domestic Relations Law § 244).