Constance S. v. Steven A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Constance S. v. Steven A.

130 A.D.2d 493, 515 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46467

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

DecidedMay 4, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 130 A.D.2d 493 (Constance S. v. Steven A.) 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

Constance S. v. Steven A., 130 A.D.2d 493, 515 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a paternity proceeding, in which the respondent had been adjudged the father of the petitioner’s son Jonathan S., the petitioner appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated June 25, 1986, which granted the respondent’s application to reopen the proceeding and to require the parties to submit to an human leucocyte antigen (HLA) blood test.

Ordered that the order is reversed and the application is denied, without costs or disbursements.

On February 17, 1978 the petitioner instituted a paternity proceeding against the respondent. The respondent appeared in court and admitted paternity and an order of support was [494]*494entered. Since that time the respondent has appeared in court in regard to support payments for the child without ever challenging the question of paternity. More than eight years after the paternity determination the instant application was brought. The respondent has not presented any proof that he is not the father of the child. Under these circumstances "something other than a request for a HLA test is required to negate [the respondent’s] prior admission of being the natural father” (Patricia W. v Michael R., 113 AD2d 935, 936). We have considered the respondent’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In a paternity proceeding, in which the respondent had been adjudged the father of the petitioner’s son Jonathan S., the petitioner appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated June 25, 1986, which granted the respondent’s application to reopen the proceeding and to require the parties to submit to an human leucocyte antigen (HLA) blood test.

Ordered that the order is reversed and the application is denied, without costs or disbursements.

On February 17, 1978 the petitioner instituted a paternity proceeding against the respondent. The respondent appeared in court and admitted paternity and an order of support was [494]*494entered. Since that time the respondent has appeared in court in regard to support payments for the child without ever challenging the question of paternity. More than eight years after the paternity determination the instant application was brought. The respondent has not presented any proof that he is not the father of the child. Under these circumstances "something other than a request for a HLA test is required to negate [the respondent’s] prior admission of being the natural father” (Patricia W. v Michael R., 113 AD2d 935, 936). We have considered the respondent’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 493, 515 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/constance-s-v-steven-a-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack