O'Neil v. Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neil v. Shaw

272 A.D.2d 619, 709 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6043

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 619 (O'Neil v. Shaw) 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

O'Neil v. Shaw, 272 A.D.2d 619, 709 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated June 24, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate an order of filiation entered on consent on July 16, 1990.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

The instant application to vacate the order of filiation was based upon a recent blood test which excluded the possibility that the appellant is the father of the child, and the mother’s acknowledgement that she does not believe the appellant is the father of her child. There is no information in the record as to the appellant’s relationship with the child, and the child’s best interests. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing on those issues (see, Matter of Louise P. v Thomas R., 223 AD2d 592). Joy, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated June 24, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate an order of filiation entered on consent on July 16, 1990.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

The instant application to vacate the order of filiation was based upon a recent blood test which excluded the possibility that the appellant is the father of the child, and the mother’s acknowledgement that she does not believe the appellant is the father of her child. There is no information in the record as to the appellant’s relationship with the child, and the child’s best interests. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing on those issues (see, Matter of Louise P. v Thomas R., 223 AD2d 592). Joy, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 619, 709 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneil-v-shaw-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack