Kurtis v. Harold L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kurtis v. Harold L.

38 A.D.2d 739, 329 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 739 (Kurtis v. Harold 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

Kurtis v. Harold L., 38 A.D.2d 739, 329 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated February 8, 1971. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and new trial ordered. In our opinion the filiation order was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The order was based solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of petitioner, a woman inclined toward loose morality and whose veracity was in question. There was testimony, however, from petitioner’s classmate and co-worker that petitioner told that witness that her fiance (a person other than appellant) was the father of the child in question. At the trial neither medical testimony nor hospital records were presented to show the date of the birth of the child or the term of the pregnancy. Upon review of the entire record in this case we feel the evidence presented falls- short of that quality and certainty required in a matter of this nature (see Matter of Gray v. Rose, 30 A D 2d 138; People v. Ruggiero, 275 App. Div. 726). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated February 8, 1971. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and new trial ordered. In our opinion the filiation order was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The order was based solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of petitioner, a woman inclined toward loose morality and whose veracity was in question. There was testimony, however, from petitioner’s classmate and co-worker that petitioner told that witness that her fiance (a person other than appellant) was the father of the child in question. At the trial neither medical testimony nor hospital records were presented to show the date of the birth of the child or the term of the pregnancy. Upon review of the entire record in this case we feel the evidence presented falls- short of that quality and certainty required in a matter of this nature (see Matter of Gray v. Rose, 30 A D 2d 138; People v. Ruggiero, 275 App. Div. 726). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 739, 329 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurtis-v-harold-l-nyappdiv-1972.