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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 19, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

297 A.D.2d 344 (Croft v. Gordon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related