Croft v. Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Croft v. Gordon

297 A.D.2d 344, 746 N.Y.2d 397, 746 N.Y.S.2d 397, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7969

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

DecidedAugust 19, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 344 (Croft v. Gordon) 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

Croft v. Gordon, 297 A.D.2d 344, 746 N.Y.2d 397, 746 N.Y.S.2d 397, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of filiation on the ground of newly-discovered evidence (see CPLR 5015 [a] [2]; Vandelli v Vandelli, 266 AD2d 280). The appellant failed to show that the alleged newly-discovered evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence before he admitted to paternity of the subject child (see Zaccaria v Russell, 288 AD2d 468; Litras v Litras, 271 AD2d 578).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of filiation on the ground of newly-discovered evidence (see CPLR 5015 [a] [2]; Vandelli v Vandelli, 266 AD2d 280). The appellant failed to show that the alleged newly-discovered evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence before he admitted to paternity of the subject child (see Zaccaria v Russell, 288 AD2d 468; Litras v Litras, 271 AD2d 578).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 344, 746 N.Y.2d 397, 746 N.Y.S.2d 397, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/croft-v-gordon-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack