Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Mohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Mohan

244 A.D. 746

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

DecidedApril 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D. 746 (Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Mohan) 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 v. Mohan, 244 A.D. 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of filiation of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, adjudging defendant to be the father of the complainant’s child, affirmed. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur; Johnston, J., dissents, with the following memorandum: The order rests largely upon the contradictory and uncorroborated testimony of complainant- She claims the child was bom on August 24, 1932, at the home of a friend and where her aunt resided, but neither the Mend nor the aunt was called as a witness. There was no attending physician or midwife. The birth certificate, signed by complainant, was not filed by her until December 20, 1932. Although she knew where defendant resided and was employed, she made no charge against him until after he married and nearly two years after the child was born, and the delay is unexplained. I dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial, on the ground the determination is against ■the weight of the evidence.

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

Order of filiation of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, adjudging defendant to be the father of the complainant’s child, affirmed. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur; Johnston, J., dissents, with the following memorandum: The order rests largely upon the contradictory and uncorroborated testimony of complainant- She claims the child was bom on August 24, 1932, at the home of a friend and where her aunt resided, but neither the Mend nor the aunt was called as a witness. There was no attending physician or midwife. The birth certificate, signed by complainant, was not filed by her until December 20, 1932. Although she knew where defendant resided and was employed, she made no charge against him until after he married and nearly two years after the child was born, and the delay is unexplained. I dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial, on the ground the determination is against ■the weight of the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-public-welfare-v-mohan-nyappdiv-1935.