Commissioner of Welfare v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioner of Welfare v. Davis

264 A.D. 727, 34 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4385

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

DecidedApril 13, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 727 (Commissioner of Welfare v. Davis) 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 Welfare v. Davis, 264 A.D. 727, 34 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of filiation made by the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn [County of Kings], wherein he was adjudged to be the father of complainant’s child bom out of wedlock and directed to pay to the commissioner of public welfare of the city of New York, as trastee, the sum of four dollars weekly toward the support and education of said child until she reaches the age of sixteen years. Order reversed on the law and the facts and the proceeding dismissed. In our opinion, the evidence introduced on behalf of the respondent does not meet the test required by law. (Commissioner of Public Welfare, City of N. Y., v. Kotel, 256 App. Div. 352; Drummond v. Dolan, 155 id. 449.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell and Adel, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: The prior inconsistent statements of the complainant urged against her credibility, as the circumstances on each occasion indicate, were of the “ white lie ” variety. It was for the triers of the fact so to appraise them and to credit her testimony. Their findings may not properly be disturbed, under Boyd v. Boyd (252 N. Y. 422).

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of filiation made by the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn [County of Kings], wherein he was adjudged to be the father of complainant’s child bom out of wedlock and directed to pay to the commissioner of public welfare of the city of New York, as trastee, the sum of four dollars weekly toward the support and education of said child until she reaches the age of sixteen years. Order reversed on the law and the facts and the proceeding dismissed. In our opinion, the evidence introduced on behalf of the respondent does not meet the test required by law. (Commissioner of Public Welfare, City of N. Y., v. Kotel, 256 App. Div. 352; Drummond v. Dolan, 155 id. 449.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell and Adel, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: The prior inconsistent statements of the complainant urged against her credibility, as the circumstances on each occasion indicate, were of the “ white lie ” variety. It was for the triers of the fact so to appraise them and to credit her testimony. Their findings may not properly be disturbed, under Boyd v. Boyd (252 N. Y. 422).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 727, 34 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-welfare-v-davis-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack