O. v. M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O. v. M.

67 A.D.3d 1018, 888 N.Y.S.2d 767

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 24, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, Todd M. appeals, by permission, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Posner, J.), dated January 26, 2009, as directed him to submit to genetic or DNA marker tests.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the evidence in the record supports the court’s finding that genetic or DNA marker testing is in the best interests of the subject child, and a hearing was not required (see Matter of Vernon J. v Sandra M., 36 AD3d 912 [2007]).

Todd M.’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Eng, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, Todd M. appeals, by permission, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Posner, J.), dated January 26, 2009, as directed him to submit to genetic or DNA marker tests.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the evidence in the record supports the court’s finding that genetic or DNA marker testing is in the best interests of the subject child, and a hearing was not required (see Matter of Vernon J. v Sandra M., 36 AD3d 912 [2007]).

Todd M.’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Eng, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

O. v. M., 67 A.D.3d 1018, 888 N.Y.S.2d 767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

67 A.D.3d 1018 (O. v. M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related