Department of Public Welfare v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Department of Public Welfare v. Hamilton

282 A.D. 1025, 126 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5709

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D. 1025 (Department of Public Welfare v. Hamilton) 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

Department of Public Welfare v. Hamilton, 282 A.D. 1025, 126 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered. In our opinion the trial court should have granted an adjournment upon the statement of defense counsel that he had additional medical testimony to prove that defendant was sterile in March, 1951, the alleged time of the conception. The undisputed expert testimony established that the defendant was sterile in February, 1953. The issue of fact was close and such additional testi mony would have had material weight in making a decision. The trial court properly excluded the testimony of the defendant as to the absence of physical resemblance between the child and himself. Upon the new trial, however, expert scientific testimony would'be admissible to show that in the course of nature it would be impossible or improbable for the putative father to have begotten a child bearing certain racial characteristics displayed by the child whose paternity is in issue (Schatkin on Disputed Paternity Proceedings, p. 159; Commissioners v. Whistelo, 3 Wheel. Cr. Gas. 194). Present — Cohn, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered. In our opinion the trial court should have granted an adjournment upon the statement of defense counsel that he had additional medical testimony to prove that defendant was sterile in March, 1951, the alleged time of the conception. The undisputed expert testimony established that the defendant was sterile in February, 1953. The issue of fact was close and such additional testi mony would have had material weight in making a decision. The trial court properly excluded the testimony of the defendant as to the absence of physical resemblance between the child and himself. Upon the new trial, however, expert scientific testimony would'be admissible to show that in the course of nature it would be impossible or improbable for the putative father to have begotten a child bearing certain racial characteristics displayed by the child whose paternity is in issue (Schatkin on Disputed Paternity Proceedings, p. 159; Commissioners v. Whistelo, 3 Wheel. Cr. Gas. 194). Present — Cohn, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1025, 126 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-public-welfare-v-hamilton-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack