Adams v. Brant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Brant

130 A.D.2d 957, 516 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46939

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

DecidedMay 22, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 130 A.D.2d 957 (Adams v. Brant) 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

Adams v. Brant, 130 A.D.2d 957, 516 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal unanimously dismissed, with costs. Memorandum: A filiation order is not appealable without permission when support is sought in the petition (Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ., 64 NY2d 15). Had the matter been properly before us, we would have affirmed for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision of Family Court. In addition, we are of the opinion that the report of the blood test was properly admitted into evidence pursuant to Family Court Act § 532. Although the test was ordered by the Department of Social Services, which was a petitioner in a prior proceeding against respondent which proceeding was dismissed without prejudice, there is nothing in the language of that section precluding petitioner, as a party to this proceeding, from offering into evidence a report ordered on the motion of a party to the prior proceeding. The report of the test was properly certified by a hospital employee who was "delegated for that purpose” by the head of the pathology department, and who was also a "qualified physician” (see, CPLR 4518 [c]). (Appeal from order of Wayne County Family Court, Strobridge, J.—paternity.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Appeal unanimously dismissed, with costs. Memorandum: A filiation order is not appealable without permission when support is sought in the petition (Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ., 64 NY2d 15). Had the matter been properly before us, we would have affirmed for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision of Family Court. In addition, we are of the opinion that the report of the blood test was properly admitted into evidence pursuant to Family Court Act § 532. Although the test was ordered by the Department of Social Services, which was a petitioner in a prior proceeding against respondent which proceeding was dismissed without prejudice, there is nothing in the language of that section precluding petitioner, as a party to this proceeding, from offering into evidence a report ordered on the motion of a party to the prior proceeding. The report of the test was properly certified by a hospital employee who was "delegated for that purpose” by the head of the pathology department, and who was also a "qualified physician” (see, CPLR 4518 [c]). (Appeal from order of Wayne County Family Court, Strobridge, J.—paternity.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 957, 516 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-brant-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack