Cardinal v. Green

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cardinal v. Green

30 A.D.2d 711, 290 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3814

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

DecidedJune 10, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 711 (Cardinal v. Green) 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

Cardinal v. Green, 30 A.D.2d 711, 290 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Appeal from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Chenango County, declaring the appellant to be the father of a certain male child born to respondent. Appellant asserts that the Family Court improperly relied on a blood test in finding appellant was the father in derogation of section 532 of the Family Court Act (People ex rel. Sheridan v. Curl, 275 App. Div. 966). This seems to us the purport of the decision in which was said, “ I am satisfied from the evidence in this matter and from the results of the blood test that the respondent * * * is the father of the child”. Further, there was no adequate decision, with findings sufficient to permit proper review. (See Matter of Gray v. Rose, 30 A D 2d 138.) Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and ease remitted to the Family Court, Chenango County, for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Appeal from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Chenango County, declaring the appellant to be the father of a certain male child born to respondent. Appellant asserts that the Family Court improperly relied on a blood test in finding appellant was the father in derogation of section 532 of the Family Court Act (People ex rel. Sheridan v. Curl, 275 App. Div. 966). This seems to us the purport of the decision in which was said, “ I am satisfied from the evidence in this matter and from the results of the blood test that the respondent * * * is the father of the child”. Further, there was no adequate decision, with findings sufficient to permit proper review. (See Matter of Gray v. Rose, 30 A D 2d 138.) Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and ease remitted to the Family Court, Chenango County, for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 711, 290 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardinal-v-green-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack