Allen A. v. Robert W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allen A. v. Robert W.

280 A.D.2d 394, 721 N.Y.S.2d 226, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1739

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 394 (Allen A. v. Robert W.) 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

Allen A. v. Robert W., 280 A.D.2d 394, 721 N.Y.S.2d 226, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about November 30, 1999, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate an order of filiation entered on or about August 3, 1990 (Judith Sheindlin, J.), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence adduced by respondent at the hearing conducted pursuant to this Court’s remand on a prior appeal (248 AD2d 271) does not establish that it is in the child’s best interests to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement, under which the order of filiation would be vacated in consideration of respondent’s payment to petitioner of a lump sum (cf., Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6, 13). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about November 30, 1999, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate an order of filiation entered on or about August 3, 1990 (Judith Sheindlin, J.), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence adduced by respondent at the hearing conducted pursuant to this Court’s remand on a prior appeal (248 AD2d 271) does not establish that it is in the child’s best interests to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement, under which the order of filiation would be vacated in consideration of respondent’s payment to petitioner of a lump sum (cf., Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6, 13). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 394, 721 N.Y.S.2d 226, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-a-v-robert-w-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack