Erie County Board of Social Welfare v. O'Neil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Erie County Board of Social Welfare v. O'Neil

19 A.D.2d 690, 242 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3511

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

DecidedJune 27, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 690 (Erie County Board of Social Welfare v. O'Neil) 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

Erie County Board of Social Welfare v. O'Neil, 19 A.D.2d 690, 242 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur except Bastow and Halpern, JJ., who dissent in the following memorandum: As to the first child born to the complainant, we believe that the Erie County Commissioner of Social Welfare had the right to institute this proceeding under section 122 of the Domestic Relations Law. The child was born in Erie County and was not only “ likely to become a public charge ” but did in fact become a public charge. The Erie County Welfare Department paid the hospital expenses for the birth of the child. The complaining witness was then a resident of Erie -County. The alleged [691]*691subsequent removal of the complaining witness to another county did not deprive the Commissioner of Social Welfare of the right to institute the proceeding in Erie County. We would therefore reverse the order appealed from and remand the case to the Family Court for further proceedings. (Appeal from order of Erie County Children’s Court discharging the defendant, in a filiation proceeding.) Present- — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur except Bastow and Halpern, JJ., who dissent in the following memorandum: As to the first child born to the complainant, we believe that the Erie County Commissioner of Social Welfare had the right to institute this proceeding under section 122 of the Domestic Relations Law. The child was born in Erie County and was not only “ likely to become a public charge ” but did in fact become a public charge. The Erie County Welfare Department paid the hospital expenses for the birth of the child. The complaining witness was then a resident of Erie -County. The alleged [691]*691subsequent removal of the complaining witness to another county did not deprive the Commissioner of Social Welfare of the right to institute the proceeding in Erie County. We would therefore reverse the order appealed from and remand the case to the Family Court for further proceedings. (Appeal from order of Erie County Children’s Court discharging the defendant, in a filiation proceeding.) Present- — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 690, 242 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erie-county-board-of-social-welfare-v-oneil-nyappdiv-1963.