Hanley v. Wilcox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanley v. Wilcox

57 A.D.2d 697, 395 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11732

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

DecidedApril 7, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 697 (Hanley v. Wilcox) 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

Hanley v. Wilcox, 57 A.D.2d 697, 395 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Paternity must be established by evidence that is "clear, convincing and entirely satisfactory”, something more than a mere •preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Piccola v Hibbard, 51 AD2d 674; Matter of Hawthorne v De Both 42 AD2d 827). In the case of a child born to a married woman, the law presumes the child is legitimate and petitioner must prove nonaccess by the husband during the period of conception (Matter of Hawthorne v De Both, supra; Matter of Gray v Rose 30 AD2d 138). The evidence in the present record does not meet these standards of proof. (Appeal from order of Oneida County Family Court—paternity.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Paternity must be established by evidence that is "clear, convincing and entirely satisfactory”, something more than a mere •preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Piccola v Hibbard, 51 AD2d 674; Matter of Hawthorne v De Both 42 AD2d 827). In the case of a child born to a married woman, the law presumes the child is legitimate and petitioner must prove nonaccess by the husband during the period of conception (Matter of Hawthorne v De Both, supra; Matter of Gray v Rose 30 AD2d 138). The evidence in the present record does not meet these standards of proof. (Appeal from order of Oneida County Family Court—paternity.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 697, 395 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanley-v-wilcox-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack