Linda S. v. James G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Linda S. v. James G.

52 A.D.2d 607, 382 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12226

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

DecidedApril 12, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 607 (Linda S. v. James G.) 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

Linda S. v. James G., 52 A.D.2d 607, 382 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a paternity proceeding, petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated December 5, 1974, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the petition. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In view of the sharp conflict in the testimony over nearly every aspect of this case, and especially with regard to the nature and extent of the underlying relationship between the parties, the credibility of the witnesses was crucial. On this record we would not be justified in substituting our judgment for that of the Trial Judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see People v Kelly, 20 AD2d 740; see, also, Matter of Powell v Anonymous, 18 AD2d 911). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a paternity proceeding, petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated December 5, 1974, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the petition. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In view of the sharp conflict in the testimony over nearly every aspect of this case, and especially with regard to the nature and extent of the underlying relationship between the parties, the credibility of the witnesses was crucial. On this record we would not be justified in substituting our judgment for that of the Trial Judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see People v Kelly, 20 AD2d 740; see, also, Matter of Powell v Anonymous, 18 AD2d 911). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 607, 382 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linda-s-v-james-g-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack