Murphy v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Murphy

64 A.D.2d 1030, 409 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13055

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 1030 (Murphy v. Murphy) 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

Murphy v. Murphy, 64 A.D.2d 1030, 409 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: In plaintiff’s action for an annulment or in the alternative for a divorce, Special Term improperly denied plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling defendant and her infant child to submit to blood tests pursuant to CPLR 3121 (subd [a]). The cause of action for annulment was based upon allegedly false representations made by defendant that plaintiff was the father of the child. Defendant’s answer contains a denial of such allegations and puts the paternity of the child in issue. Inasmuch as the motion was made "After commencement of an action in which * * * the blood relationship of a party or of [a] person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy”, plaintiff was entitled to the order as a matter of right. (CPLR 3121, subd [a]; Vargas v Vargas, 54 AD2d 590.) (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—blood tests.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: In plaintiff’s action for an annulment or in the alternative for a divorce, Special Term improperly denied plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling defendant and her infant child to submit to blood tests pursuant to CPLR 3121 (subd [a]). The cause of action for annulment was based upon allegedly false representations made by defendant that plaintiff was the father of the child. Defendant’s answer contains a denial of such allegations and puts the paternity of the child in issue. Inasmuch as the motion was made "After commencement of an action in which * * * the blood relationship of a party or of [a] person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy”, plaintiff was entitled to the order as a matter of right. (CPLR 3121, subd [a]; Vargas v Vargas, 54 AD2d 590.) (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—blood tests.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 1030, 409 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack