Anne E. S. v. Antonios S.

115 Misc. 2d 192, 454 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3658
CourtNew York City Family Court
DecidedAugust 11, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 115 Misc. 2d 192 (Anne E. S. v. Antonios S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Family Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anne E. S. v. Antonios S., 115 Misc. 2d 192, 454 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3658 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1982).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Mortimer Getzels, J.

Petitioner moves by order to show cause to vacate this court’s dismissal without prejudice of a paternity proceeding, to restore the case to the calendar and to direct respondent to submit to a human leucocyte antigen (HLA) blood test.

Petitioner is pregnant and expects her child to be born in September, 1982. She filed a petition in April, 1982 alleging respondent to be the father of the child and requested the court to order the parties, including the unborn child, to undergo an HLA test immediately, fearing that respondent would leave this country before the child’s birth. Respondent, a Greek national, was a graduate student at City College and was due to complete his degree program in May, 1982.

In light of the failure of petitioner to advance any proof that an HLA test performed prenatally is either scientifically reliable or within the statutory provisions of the Family Court Act and upon the sworn testimony of respondent that he was remaining in the United States, the court [193]*193dismissed the petition without prejudice to renew after the birth of the child.

Petitioner’s instant motion to vacate that dismissal is based on two articles published in medical journals attesting to the reliability of prenatal HLA testing. Respondent opposes the motion asserting that the Family Court Act does not make provision for prenatal HLA blood tests.

Section 532 of the Family Court Act provides that: “The court, on motion of any party, shall advise the parties of their right to a blood test and shall order the mother, her child and the alleged father to submit to one or more blood grouping tests” (emphasis added).

Child, as defined by article 5 of the Family Court Act, is “a child born out of wedlock.” (Family Ct Act, § 512; emphasis added.) Nowhere in article 5 is provision made for testing of a fetus. The plain meaning of the statute is to allow blood tests to be made on a child already born. This does not preclude a petitioner from commencing a paternity proceeding during the pregnancy of the mother. (Family Ct Act, § 517.) However, where either party demands a blood test, the matter must be adjourned until after the birth of the child.

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

Related

In re Unborn Child
179 Misc. 2d 1 (New York Family Court, 1998)
Isabellita S. v. John S.
132 Misc. 2d 475 (New York Family Court, 1986)
Gloria C. v. William C.
124 Misc. 2d 313 (New York Family Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 Misc. 2d 192, 454 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anne-e-s-v-antonios-s-nycfamct-1982.