Crane v. Crane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crane v. Crane

81 A.D.2d 1033, 440 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11795

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

DecidedMay 27, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 1033 (Crane v. Crane) 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

Crane v. Crane, 81 A.D.2d 1033, 440 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: This is an appeal from a determination in a paternity case in which the putative father alleges paternity and the mother denies it. The child was born out of wedlock [1034]*1034and the parties married each other one and one-half years later. They are now litigating a divorce. While we affirm the determination made by the trial court, we note that during the trial it erred in stating that a presumption of legitimacy was created under section 24 of the Domestic Relations Law. That statute creates such a presumption for a child where the parenthood of both mother and father, married prior or subsequent to the child’s birth, is conceded or proved. Here the parenthood of the father was the very issue of the lawsuit. The trial court further erred by ostensibly and incorrectly casting the burden of proof on appellant mother. Nonetheless, having reviewed the trial record, we are persuaded that respondent father succeeded in proving his paternity (see Jaynes v Tulla, 70 AD2d 680, 681). Thus, the finding made by the trial court that respondent is the natural father of the infant finds ample support in the record. The other issues raised by appellant mother on this appeal have been examined and found to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court — visitation.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: This is an appeal from a determination in a paternity case in which the putative father alleges paternity and the mother denies it. The child was born out of wedlock [1034]*1034and the parties married each other one and one-half years later. They are now litigating a divorce. While we affirm the determination made by the trial court, we note that during the trial it erred in stating that a presumption of legitimacy was created under section 24 of the Domestic Relations Law. That statute creates such a presumption for a child where the parenthood of both mother and father, married prior or subsequent to the child’s birth, is conceded or proved. Here the parenthood of the father was the very issue of the lawsuit. The trial court further erred by ostensibly and incorrectly casting the burden of proof on appellant mother. Nonetheless, having reviewed the trial record, we are persuaded that respondent father succeeded in proving his paternity (see Jaynes v Tulla, 70 AD2d 680, 681). Thus, the finding made by the trial court that respondent is the natural father of the infant finds ample support in the record. The other issues raised by appellant mother on this appeal have been examined and found to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court — visitation.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 1033, 440 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crane-v-crane-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack