Melis v. Department of Health

New York Supreme Court

Melis v. Department of Health

173 Misc. 630, 18 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1519

DecidedJanuary 24, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 173 Misc. 630 (Melis v. Department of Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Melis v. Department of Health, 173 Misc. 630, 18 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1519 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Hammer, J.

This application for a mandamus order is denied. It seems that the spectific provisions of law requiring the Domestic Relations Court or its clerk to transmit to the commissioner of health notice of determination of parentage have to do with proceedings where the determination of parentage is favorable to the child, as, for example, where an order of filiation is made. (Dom. Rel. Law, § 127.) It does not appear that an adverse finding of non-parentage incidental to a proceeding to compel support is a determination coming within the purview of section 254 of the Judiciary-Law. If the foregoing is correct, neither the court nor its clerk was required by law to furnish the certificate or to transmit the notice, and they may not be required to do so by mandamus.

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

Hammer, J.

This application for a mandamus order is denied. It seems that the spectific provisions of law requiring the Domestic Relations Court or its clerk to transmit to the commissioner of health notice of determination of parentage have to do with proceedings where the determination of parentage is favorable to the child, as, for example, where an order of filiation is made. (Dom. Rel. Law, § 127.) It does not appear that an adverse finding of non-parentage incidental to a proceeding to compel support is a determination coming within the purview of section 254 of the Judiciary-Law. If the foregoing is correct, neither the court nor its clerk was required by law to furnish the certificate or to transmit the notice, and they may not be required to do so by mandamus.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 Misc. 630, 18 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melis-v-department-of-health-nysupct-1940.