Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Velez

272 A.D.2d 754

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 3, 1947·Published

Opinion

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ.; Van Voorhis, J., dissents in a memorandum, in' which Glennon, J., concurs, as follows: Orders of filiation should only be granted upon evidence which is “ entirely satisfactory ” (Commissioner of Public Welfare. [755] City of N. Y. v. Kotel, 256 App. Div. 352). The evidence must be clear and convincing. I do not think that the testimony of petitioner and her friend measures up to this standard.

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

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ.; Van Voorhis, J., dissents in a memorandum, in' which Glennon, J., concurs, as follows: Orders of filiation should only be granted upon evidence which is “ entirely satisfactory ” (Commissioner of Public Welfare. [755] City of N. Y. v. Kotel, 256 App. Div. 352). The evidence must be clear and convincing. I do not think that the testimony of petitioner and her friend measures up to this standard.

Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Velez, 272 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

272 A.D.2d 754 (Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Velez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related