Gloria R. v. George P. L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gloria R. v. George P. L.

57 A.D.2d 892, 394 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12125

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

DecidedMay 16, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 892 (Gloria R. v. George P. L.) 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

Gloria R. v. George P. L., 57 A.D.2d 892, 394 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a paternity proceeding, the appeal is from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered February 4, 1976, after a nonjury trial. Permission for the taking of this appeal is hereby granted. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In the light of the conflicting testimony of the two parties and of their witnesses, it is clear that this proceeding turned on a close question of credibility. As this court has previously noted in connection with records similar to the one-which is presently before us, "we would not be [893]*893justified in substituting our judgment for that of the Trial Judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” (Matter of Linda S. v James G., 52 AD2d 607; People v Kelly, 20 AD2d 740). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a paternity proceeding, the appeal is from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered February 4, 1976, after a nonjury trial. Permission for the taking of this appeal is hereby granted. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In the light of the conflicting testimony of the two parties and of their witnesses, it is clear that this proceeding turned on a close question of credibility. As this court has previously noted in connection with records similar to the one-which is presently before us, "we would not be [893]*893justified in substituting our judgment for that of the Trial Judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” (Matter of Linda S. v James G., 52 AD2d 607; People v Kelly, 20 AD2d 740). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 892, 394 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gloria-r-v-george-p-l-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack