Fulmer v. Buxenbaum

90 A.D.3d 755, 936 N.Y.2d 550
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 13, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 755 (Fulmer v. Buxenbaum) 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
Fulmer v. Buxenbaum, 90 A.D.3d 755, 936 N.Y.2d 550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

An order of filiation may be vacated on the grounds of “fraud, [756]*756misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party” (CPLR 5015 [a] [3]; see Matter of Jose F.R. v Reina C.A., 46 AD3d 564 [2007]). The Family Court properly denied the mother’s application to vacate the order of filiation entered in the instant proceeding because she failed to make a prima facie showing of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct (see CPLR 5015 [a] [3]; Matter of Vernon J. v Sandra M., 36 AD3d 912 [2007]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P, Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Jonathan C. v. Iaishia Q. T.
131 A.D.3d 1054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Crowell v. Lindor
107 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.3d 755, 936 N.Y.2d 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulmer-v-buxenbaum-nyappdiv-2011.