Hammod v. New York City Department of Health

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hammod v. New York City Department of Health

264 A.D.2d 582, 694 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8953

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

DecidedSeptember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 582 (Hammod v. New York City Department of Health) 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

Hammod v. New York City Department of Health, 264 A.D.2d 582, 694 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8953 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 25, 1998, granting petitioner’s application to compel respondent to issue him a delayed birth registration, and order, same court and Justice, entered April 21, 1998, supplementing the March 25, 1998 judgment to the extent of setting forth the names of petitioner’s father and mother, unanimously reversed, on the law, without [583]*583costs or disbursements, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.

There was no legal basis whatever for the grant of the petition seeking a “delayed registration of birth.” Petitioner failed to present any probative proof, much less “convincing proof’, as required by New York City Health Code (24 RCNY) § 201.11 (a) (3), for the issuance of a registration attesting to his birth in New York City at the time and place claimed. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 25, 1998, granting petitioner’s application to compel respondent to issue him a delayed birth registration, and order, same court and Justice, entered April 21, 1998, supplementing the March 25, 1998 judgment to the extent of setting forth the names of petitioner’s father and mother, unanimously reversed, on the law, without [583]*583costs or disbursements, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.

There was no legal basis whatever for the grant of the petition seeking a “delayed registration of birth.” Petitioner failed to present any probative proof, much less “convincing proof’, as required by New York City Health Code (24 RCNY) § 201.11 (a) (3), for the issuance of a registration attesting to his birth in New York City at the time and place claimed. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 582, 694 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammod-v-new-york-city-department-of-health-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack