Case v. Robert EE.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Case v. Robert EE.

167 A.D.2d 567, 563 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13020

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 567 (Case v. Robert EE.) 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

Case v. Robert EE., 167 A.D.2d 567, 563 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tioga County (Siedlecki, J.), entered June 25, 1987, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, to adjudicate respondent as the father of the child of Vicki DD.

As with most paternity proceedings, this case involves the resolution of conflicting testimony and Family Court’s determination as to the credibility of witnesses will be accorded great deference (see, Matter of Commissioner of Saratoga County Dept. of Social Servs. v Charles G., 146 AD2d 854, 855). The evidence here, which included petitioner’s testimony of sexual relations with respondent and blood tests, does not compel a different result than that reached by Family Court; therefore, its findings will not be disturbed by this court (see, Matter of Julie UU. v Joseph W., 108 AD2d 1038, 1039). Furthermore, since there is no material deviation from the normal period of gestation, which ranges from 265 to 299 days, medical testimony was not necessary in this case (see, Matter of Broome County Dept. of Social Servs. v Walter Z., 149 AD2d 756, 757-758; Matter of Pandozy v Perry X., 141 AD2d 894, 896). Respondent’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tioga County (Siedlecki, J.), entered June 25, 1987, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, to adjudicate respondent as the father of the child of Vicki DD.

As with most paternity proceedings, this case involves the resolution of conflicting testimony and Family Court’s determination as to the credibility of witnesses will be accorded great deference (see, Matter of Commissioner of Saratoga County Dept. of Social Servs. v Charles G., 146 AD2d 854, 855). The evidence here, which included petitioner’s testimony of sexual relations with respondent and blood tests, does not compel a different result than that reached by Family Court; therefore, its findings will not be disturbed by this court (see, Matter of Julie UU. v Joseph W., 108 AD2d 1038, 1039). Furthermore, since there is no material deviation from the normal period of gestation, which ranges from 265 to 299 days, medical testimony was not necessary in this case (see, Matter of Broome County Dept. of Social Servs. v Walter Z., 149 AD2d 756, 757-758; Matter of Pandozy v Perry X., 141 AD2d 894, 896). Respondent’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 567, 563 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/case-v-robert-ee-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack