Mannain v. Lay

33 A.D.2d 1024, 308 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5621
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 2, 1970
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 1024 (Mannain v. Lay) 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
Mannain v. Lay, 33 A.D.2d 1024, 308 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

— 'In a proceeding to establish paternity, the appeal is from an orden of the Family Court, Dutchess County, dated June 26, 1968, which adjudged appellant the father of the child. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and petition dismissed. We agree with the holding of the trial court that the fact that petitioner was a married woman during the operative period in question is no bar to this paternity suit (see Matter of Morris v. “White”, 29 A D 2d 905; Matter of “Anonymous” v. “Anonymous”, 43 Misc 2d 1050; Matter of Fitzsimmons v. De Cicco, 44 Misc 2d 307; Matter of Lee v. Stix, 55 Misc 2d 940). However, while the proof was sufficient to establish a meretricious relationship between petitioner and appellant, in our opinion it fell far short of overcoming the presumption of legitimacy by failing to negate access on the part of petitioner’s husband during the period when conception must have occurred (Matter of Gray v. Rose, 32 A D 2d 994; Matter of Black v. Brown, 27 A D 2d 683; People v. Lewis, 25 A D 2d 567; Matter of Lee v. Stix, supra). In the circumstances, petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proving appellant’s responsibility by evidence so clear and convincing as to be entirely satisfactory (see Matter of Commissioner of Welfare of City of N. Y. v. Fields, 25 A D 2d 504; Matter of Rebmann v. Muldoon, 23 A D 2d [1025]*1025163, 164; Phillips v. Tagliavini, 275 App. Div. 1037). Christ, Rabin and Munder, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., and Benjamin, J., dissent and vote to affirm the order.

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

Related

Matter of Alison RR
2020 NY Slip Op 06002 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Ariel G. v. Greysy C.
133 A.D.3d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Mulligan v. Corbett
45 A.3d 243 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2012)
J.A.S. v. Bushelman
342 S.W.3d 850 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2011)
Matter of French v. Hanson
2007 NY Slip Op 52175(U) (Essex Family Court, 2007)
Cheryl A. B. v. Michael Anthony D.
209 A.D.2d 966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Lewis v. Schneider
890 P.2d 148 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1994)
Wayne County Department of Social Services v. Titcomb
124 A.D.2d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Constance G. v. Lewis L.
119 A.D.2d 209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Wilkins v. Department of Human Resources
337 S.E.2d 20 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1985)
Ettore I. v. Angela D.
129 Misc. 2d 301 (NYC Family Court, 1985)
La Croix v. Deyo
108 Misc. 2d 382 (NYC Family Court, 1981)
Czajak v. Vavonese
104 Misc. 2d 601 (NYC Family Court, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A.D.2d 1024, 308 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mannain-v-lay-nyappdiv-1970.