Adams v. Buccellato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Buccellato

74 A.D.2d 726, 425 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10417

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.2d 726 (Adams v. Buccellato) 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. Buccellato, 74 A.D.2d 726, 425 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The conclusion reached by the trial court that respondent is the father of the child born out of wedlock to petitioner on January 26, 1978 finds ample support in the record. While the trial court does not sufficiently state the ultimate facts in support of its conclusion (CPLR 4213, subd [b]), the record reveals the existence of such facts and we make the following findings which the Trial Judge (now deceased) should have made (Fischer v Fischer, 45 AD2d 917). The parties engaged in sexual intercourse over a period of time which included April, 1977. Specifically, the parties had sexual relations at a motel in Skaneateles, New York, on April 13, 1977. These sexual activities resulted in petitioner’s pregnancy. [727]*727Petitioner neither dated nor had sexual intercourse with any other male during the time critical to conception. Motel records contradicted respondent’s testimony in which he admitted sexual intercourse with the petitioner only during the summer and fall of 1977. The determination of paternity rested on a resolution of credibility and the decision of the Family Court was supported by clear and convincing evidence (Stenzel v D’Agostino, 50 AD2d 1066). (Appeal from order of Cayuga Family Court — paternity.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The conclusion reached by the trial court that respondent is the father of the child born out of wedlock to petitioner on January 26, 1978 finds ample support in the record. While the trial court does not sufficiently state the ultimate facts in support of its conclusion (CPLR 4213, subd [b]), the record reveals the existence of such facts and we make the following findings which the Trial Judge (now deceased) should have made (Fischer v Fischer, 45 AD2d 917). The parties engaged in sexual intercourse over a period of time which included April, 1977. Specifically, the parties had sexual relations at a motel in Skaneateles, New York, on April 13, 1977. These sexual activities resulted in petitioner’s pregnancy. [727]*727Petitioner neither dated nor had sexual intercourse with any other male during the time critical to conception. Motel records contradicted respondent’s testimony in which he admitted sexual intercourse with the petitioner only during the summer and fall of 1977. The determination of paternity rested on a resolution of credibility and the decision of the Family Court was supported by clear and convincing evidence (Stenzel v D’Agostino, 50 AD2d 1066). (Appeal from order of Cayuga Family Court — paternity.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 726, 425 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-buccellato-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack