Commissioner of Welfare v. "Paul Black"

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioner of Welfare v. "Paul Black"

25 A.D.2d 596

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 596 (Commissioner of Welfare v. "Paul Black") 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. "Paul Black", 25 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of filiation of the Family Court of Schoharie County. [597]*597The only witnesses, other than the complainant and the appellant, were the petitioner and two ease workers, none of whom had personal knowledge of the alleged relations between the complainant and the appellant. The appellant, a married man, admitted that he had had social engagements with the complainant but denied sexual intimacy. On this record and having in mind the appellant’s admissions, we would not be justified in substituting our judgment for that of the Trial Judge, who has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the appellant and the complainant. Order affirmed, with costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of filiation of the Family Court of Schoharie County. [597]*597The only witnesses, other than the complainant and the appellant, were the petitioner and two ease workers, none of whom had personal knowledge of the alleged relations between the complainant and the appellant. The appellant, a married man, admitted that he had had social engagements with the complainant but denied sexual intimacy. On this record and having in mind the appellant’s admissions, we would not be justified in substituting our judgment for that of the Trial Judge, who has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the appellant and the complainant. Order affirmed, with costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-welfare-v-paul-black-nyappdiv-1966.