Dolan v. Jay E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dolan v. Jay E.

183 A.D.2d 969

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

DecidedMay 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 969 (Dolan v. Jay E.) 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

Dolan v. Jay E., 183 A.D.2d 969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Friedlander, J.), entered May 30, 1991, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, denied respondent’s motion to vacate an order of filiation.

We reject respondent’s contention that Family Court erred in denying his motion to vacate a previous order adjudging him to be the father of a child born to Faye D. Initially, we note that at the paternity hearing held in 1986, respondent admitted paternity and an order of filiation and support was entered. It was not until September 1990, after a petition was filed against him seeking confinement costs, that respondent first raised the issue of his paternity and it was not until February 1991 that he made the instant motion to vacate (see, Matter of Constance S. v Steven A., 130 AD2d 493). Although respondent contends that he is entitled to vacatur on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Faye D. (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]) in that he claims she told him and others that she did not believe he was the child’s father, he failed to present any proof in support of this contention (cf., Matter of Sandy M. v Timothy J., 138 Misc 2d 338). Respondent’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and rejected as being without merit.

Mikoll, J. P, Levine, Crew III, Casey and Harvey, JJ, concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Friedlander, J.), entered May 30, 1991, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, denied respondent’s motion to vacate an order of filiation.

We reject respondent’s contention that Family Court erred in denying his motion to vacate a previous order adjudging him to be the father of a child born to Faye D. Initially, we note that at the paternity hearing held in 1986, respondent admitted paternity and an order of filiation and support was entered. It was not until September 1990, after a petition was filed against him seeking confinement costs, that respondent first raised the issue of his paternity and it was not until February 1991 that he made the instant motion to vacate (see, Matter of Constance S. v Steven A., 130 AD2d 493). Although respondent contends that he is entitled to vacatur on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Faye D. (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]) in that he claims she told him and others that she did not believe he was the child’s father, he failed to present any proof in support of this contention (cf., Matter of Sandy M. v Timothy J., 138 Misc 2d 338). Respondent’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and rejected as being without merit.

Mikoll, J. P, Levine, Crew III, Casey and Harvey, JJ, concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dolan-v-jay-e-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack