Joan D. v. Raymond B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joan D. v. Raymond B.

52 A.D.2d 636, 382 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12288

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

DecidedApril 26, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 636 (Joan D. v. Raymond B.) 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

Joan D. v. Raymond B., 52 A.D.2d 636, 382 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a paternity proceeding in which an order of filiation was entered on March 26, 1973, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated June 12, 1975, which granted respondent’s motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Permission for the taking of the appeal is hereby granted. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court correctly determined that the nature and quality of the newly discovered evidence requires a new trial (see Delagi v Delagi, 34 AD2d 1005) and that, for the most part, respondent exercised due diligence in obtaining said evidence (see McCarthy [637]*637v Port of N. Y. Auth., 21 AD2d 125). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a paternity proceeding in which an order of filiation was entered on March 26, 1973, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated June 12, 1975, which granted respondent’s motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Permission for the taking of the appeal is hereby granted. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court correctly determined that the nature and quality of the newly discovered evidence requires a new trial (see Delagi v Delagi, 34 AD2d 1005) and that, for the most part, respondent exercised due diligence in obtaining said evidence (see McCarthy [637]*637v Port of N. Y. Auth., 21 AD2d 125). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 636, 382 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joan-d-v-raymond-b-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack