Clovsky v. Jeffrey SS.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clovsky v. Jeffrey SS.

152 A.D.2d 839, 544 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9600

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 A.D.2d 839 (Clovsky v. Jeffrey SS.) 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

Clovsky v. Jeffrey SS., 152 A.D.2d 839, 544 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from that part of an order of the Family Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), entered August 30, 1988, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, without prejudice.

Petitioner instituted this proceeding to adjudicate respondent the father of a child born out of wedlock to Pamela TT. Shortly before the scheduled hearing date, the mother admitted that she had had sexual relations with other men during the period of possible conception, contrary to the response which she had given in answer to respondent’s demand for a bill of particulars. Contending that he had prepared a defense based upon the original representation made by the mother, respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding. Family Court denied the motion and offered to adjourn the hearing to afford respondent additional time to prepare a defense in light of the mother’s admission. When respondent stated that he was willing to proceed with the hearing, petitioner indicated that he was not ready. Respondent again moved to dismiss and Family Court granted the motion, but without prejudice to renewal at a later date. Respondent appeals, contending that Family Court erred in failing to grant his request that the dismissal be with prejudice.

"The primary purpose of establishing paternity is to ensure that adequate provision will be made for the child’s needs, in accordance with the means of the parents” (Matter of L. Pamela P. v Frank S., 59 NY2d 1, 5). In addition, we have said that "since paternity statutes are intended, inter alia, to protect public funds, welfare officials are to be given the widest latitude to establish paternity of illegitimate children who are, or are likely to become, public charges” (Matter of [840]*840Van Alstyne v David Q., 92 AD2d 971, 972). Since dismissal of this proceeding with prejudice would be inconsistent with the overriding concern for the child’s needs and the interest in preserving public funds, the order should be affirmed.

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

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

Casey, J.

Appeal from that part of an order of the Family Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), entered August 30, 1988, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, without prejudice.

Petitioner instituted this proceeding to adjudicate respondent the father of a child born out of wedlock to Pamela TT. Shortly before the scheduled hearing date, the mother admitted that she had had sexual relations with other men during the period of possible conception, contrary to the response which she had given in answer to respondent’s demand for a bill of particulars. Contending that he had prepared a defense based upon the original representation made by the mother, respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding. Family Court denied the motion and offered to adjourn the hearing to afford respondent additional time to prepare a defense in light of the mother’s admission. When respondent stated that he was willing to proceed with the hearing, petitioner indicated that he was not ready. Respondent again moved to dismiss and Family Court granted the motion, but without prejudice to renewal at a later date. Respondent appeals, contending that Family Court erred in failing to grant his request that the dismissal be with prejudice.

"The primary purpose of establishing paternity is to ensure that adequate provision will be made for the child’s needs, in accordance with the means of the parents” (Matter of L. Pamela P. v Frank S., 59 NY2d 1, 5). In addition, we have said that "since paternity statutes are intended, inter alia, to protect public funds, welfare officials are to be given the widest latitude to establish paternity of illegitimate children who are, or are likely to become, public charges” (Matter of [840]*840Van Alstyne v David Q., 92 AD2d 971, 972). Since dismissal of this proceeding with prejudice would be inconsistent with the overriding concern for the child’s needs and the interest in preserving public funds, the order should be affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 839, 544 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clovsky-v-jeffrey-ss-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack