Janine MM. v. Mark NN.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Janine MM. v. Mark NN.

85 A.D.2d 852, 446 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16682

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 852 (Janine MM. v. Mark NN.) 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

Janine MM. v. Mark NN., 85 A.D.2d 852, 446 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Reeves, J.), entered December 10,1980, which adjudicated respondent to be the father of petitioner’s child. At the trial of this paternity proceeding, petitioner testified that her last men[853]*853strual period, prior to the birth, was on June 11 or June 12,1977. Subsequent to this menstrual period, petitioner testified she had sexual relations with no one other than respondent. She alleges that as a result she became pregnant and a baby was born on March 27,1978. Family Court adjudged respondent to be the father of the child and this appeal ensued. Contrary to respondent’s contention, we are of the view that petitioner sustained the burden of establishing respondent’s paternity by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence at trial presented questions of credibility, and this court is reluctant to reverse a trial court on findings based on credibility since the trier of fact has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses firsthand (Matter of O’Connor v Sanford, 72 AD2d 884). After careful examination of the record, it is the opinion of this court that the order should be affirmed. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Reeves, J.), entered December 10,1980, which adjudicated respondent to be the father of petitioner’s child. At the trial of this paternity proceeding, petitioner testified that her last men[853]*853strual period, prior to the birth, was on June 11 or June 12,1977. Subsequent to this menstrual period, petitioner testified she had sexual relations with no one other than respondent. She alleges that as a result she became pregnant and a baby was born on March 27,1978. Family Court adjudged respondent to be the father of the child and this appeal ensued. Contrary to respondent’s contention, we are of the view that petitioner sustained the burden of establishing respondent’s paternity by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence at trial presented questions of credibility, and this court is reluctant to reverse a trial court on findings based on credibility since the trier of fact has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses firsthand (Matter of O’Connor v Sanford, 72 AD2d 884). After careful examination of the record, it is the opinion of this court that the order should be affirmed. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 852, 446 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janine-mm-v-mark-nn-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack