Cheryl B. v. Troy P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cheryl B. v. Troy P.

265 A.D.2d 551, 696 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10784

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 551 (Cheryl B. v. Troy P.) 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

Cheryl B. v. Troy P., 265 A.D.2d 551, 696 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish paternity and for an award of child support, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Adams, J.), dated August 11, 1998, which, after a hearing, determined that the appellant is the father of the child.

Ordered that the notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be an application of leave to appeal and leave is granted (see, Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ., 64 NY2d 15); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the particular facts of this case, the Family Court properly determined that the appellant is the father of the subject child (see, Jean Maby H. v Joseph H., 246 AD2d 282; Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y., 240 AD2d 812; Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish paternity and for an award of child support, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Adams, J.), dated August 11, 1998, which, after a hearing, determined that the appellant is the father of the child.

Ordered that the notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be an application of leave to appeal and leave is granted (see, Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ., 64 NY2d 15); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the particular facts of this case, the Family Court properly determined that the appellant is the father of the subject child (see, Jean Maby H. v Joseph H., 246 AD2d 282; Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y., 240 AD2d 812; Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 551, 696 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheryl-b-v-troy-p-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack