Commissioner of Public Welfare of New York, on Complaint of Heidinger v. Zizzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioner of Public Welfare of New York, on Complaint of Heidinger v. Zizzo

236 A.D. 813

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 813 (Commissioner of Public Welfare of New York, on Complaint of Heidinger v. Zizzo) 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

Commissioner of Public Welfare of New York, on Complaint of Heidinger v. Zizzo, 236 A.D. 813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, adjudging that the defendant is not the father of complainant’s child and directing his discharge, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. The application for an order of filiation was denied on the ground that there was “ no competent testimony in the record to prove non-access of the husband.” The complainant, a married woman, had testified, without objection, to non-access by her husband. This court held in People (Complaint of Sullivan) v. Dykeman (229 App. Div. 251) that such testimony, received without objection, was competent proof. Subsequently, the Legislature, by an amendment to the Inferior Criminal Courts Act of the City of New York, provided that if the mother is married both she and her husband may testify to non-access. (Inferior Criminal Courts Act of the City of New York, art. III-C, § 35-g.)

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

Order of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, adjudging that the defendant is not the father of complainant’s child and directing his discharge, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. The application for an order of filiation was denied on the ground that there was “ no competent testimony in the record to prove non-access of the husband.” The complainant, a married woman, had testified, without objection, to non-access by her husband. This court held in People (Complaint of Sullivan) v. Dykeman (229 App. Div. 251) that such testimony, received without objection, was competent proof. Subsequently, the Legislature, by an amendment to the Inferior Criminal Courts Act of the City of New York, provided that if the mother is married both she and her husband may testify to non-access. (Inferior Criminal Courts Act of the City of New York, art. III-C, § 35-g.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-public-welfare-of-new-york-on-complaint-of-heidinger-v-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack