Patricia L. v. Levi L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patricia L. v. Levi L.

43 A.D.3d 468, 840 N.Y.S.2d 540

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

DecidedAugust 21, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 468 (Patricia L. v. Levi L.) 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

Patricia L. v. Levi L., 43 A.D.3d 468, 840 N.Y.S.2d 540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to establish paternity pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the putative father appeals, by permission, from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Kings County (O’Shea, J.), dated June 14, 2006, which adjudicated him to be the father of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In light of, inter alia, the unrebutted testimony of the mother as to an exclusive sexual relationship with the appellant during the relevant period, and two DNA tests indicating a 99.93% and a 99.96% probability that the appellant was the father of the subject child, the Family Court neither improvidently exercised its discretion nor violated the appellant’s due process rights when it denied his request for a third DNA test to be conducted by a different laboratory (see Family Ct Act § 532 [a]).

Similarly, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion or violate the appellant’s due process rights when it denied his request for a third adjournment to present testimony from the doctor who authenticated the DNA reports (see Family Ct Act § 533; cf. Matter of Sicurella v Embro, 31 AD3d 651 [2006]).

[469]*469The appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Crane, J.P, Ritter, Dillon and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to establish paternity pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the putative father appeals, by permission, from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Kings County (O’Shea, J.), dated June 14, 2006, which adjudicated him to be the father of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In light of, inter alia, the unrebutted testimony of the mother as to an exclusive sexual relationship with the appellant during the relevant period, and two DNA tests indicating a 99.93% and a 99.96% probability that the appellant was the father of the subject child, the Family Court neither improvidently exercised its discretion nor violated the appellant’s due process rights when it denied his request for a third DNA test to be conducted by a different laboratory (see Family Ct Act § 532 [a]).

Similarly, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion or violate the appellant’s due process rights when it denied his request for a third adjournment to present testimony from the doctor who authenticated the DNA reports (see Family Ct Act § 533; cf. Matter of Sicurella v Embro, 31 AD3d 651 [2006]).

[469]*469The appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Crane, J.P, Ritter, Dillon and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 468, 840 N.Y.S.2d 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patricia-l-v-levi-l-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack