Department of Social Services of Jefferson County v. Overdorf

115 A.D.2d 274, 495 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54535
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 274 (Department of Social Services of Jefferson County v. Overdorf) 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 Social Services of Jefferson County v. Overdorf, 115 A.D.2d 274, 495 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and order approving paternity agreement reinstated. Memorandum: Family Court erred in vacating its prior order of filiation on its own motion without notice to the parties and ordering a trial on the issue of paternity. First, the court was without authority to vacate its prior order nine months after its entry, upon its own motion, and without notice to the parties (see, CPLR 2221, [275]*2754404 [b]; 4405, 5015 [a] [2]). Second, the paternity agreement entered into between the parties is conclusive on the rights of the parties (Family Ct Act § 516; Auleta v Bernadin, 113 Misc 2d 526), and the court did not have their consent to overturn it. Third, the evidence of the mother’s marriage, without proof of access by the husband, is not such evidence as in all probability would have produced a different result (see, Matter of Elizabeth E. v Leary, 63 Misc 2d 857, 860-861). Fourth, the mother’s husband is not a necessary party to a paternity proceeding brought by the Department of Social Services (Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of N. Y. v Koehler, 284 NY 260, 266-267). Finally, the fact of the mother’s marriage at the time of conception, although raising a strong presumption of legitimacy in a contested paternity proceeding, can neither absolutely bar the acknowledged natural father’s rights nor absolutely insulate him from his legal obligations (see, Family Ct Act §§ 522, 531; cf. Caban v Mohammed, 441 US 380; Gomez v Perez, 409 US 535, 538). (Appeal from order of Jefferson County Family Court, Gilbert, J.—paternity.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Green, JJ.

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

Related

Crosby v. Crossett
33 Misc. 3d 324 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Matter of Anthony S.P. v. Gina L.R.
2006 NY Slip Op 51506(U) (Erie Family Court, 2006)
Sherri Builders Corp. v. Amer
280 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
South Carolina Department of Social Services ex rel. Bradford v. Starks
206 A.D.2d 312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Sandy M. v. Timothy J.
138 Misc. 2d 338 (NYC Family Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 A.D.2d 274, 495 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-social-services-of-jefferson-county-v-overdorf-nyappdiv-1985.