People v. Borner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Borner

280 A.D. 141, 112 N.Y.S.2d 364

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

DecidedMay 7, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 141 (People v. Borner) 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

People v. Borner, 280 A.D. 141, 112 N.Y.S.2d 364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In filiation proceedings, the proof must be “ entirely satisfactory ” to sustain an order. (Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of N. Y. v. Hotel, 256 App. Div. 352; [142]*142Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of N. Y. v. Ryan, 238 App. Div. 607; Drummond v. Dolan, 155 App. Div. 449.) On this record it is our opinion that the proof is clearly insufficient in quality and quantity to warrant an order adjudging the defendant to be the father of the child. The order awarded counsel fees to the Niagara County Commissioner of Public Welfare. While the father of a child born out of wedlock is liable for expenses of the mother’s confinement and recovery, and expenses including counsel fees in connection with her pregnancy (Domestic Delations Law, § 120, as amd. by L. 1947, ch. 154), there was no authority in the instant case to award counsel fees to anyone but the complainant. The Commissioner of Public Welfare was not a party to the proceeding. There was no proof nor any adjudication that the child was a public charge. Had the complainant been a public welfare official, it would have been the duty of the county attorney or corporation counsel to prosecute. (Domestic Relations Law, § 137.)

The order should be reversed on the law and facts and a new trial had.

All concur. Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Order of filiation reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, without costs of this appeal to either party.

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

Per Curiam.

In filiation proceedings, the proof must be “ entirely satisfactory ” to sustain an order. (Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of N. Y. v. Hotel, 256 App. Div. 352; [142]*142Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of N. Y. v. Ryan, 238 App. Div. 607; Drummond v. Dolan, 155 App. Div. 449.) On this record it is our opinion that the proof is clearly insufficient in quality and quantity to warrant an order adjudging the defendant to be the father of the child. The order awarded counsel fees to the Niagara County Commissioner of Public Welfare. While the father of a child born out of wedlock is liable for expenses of the mother’s confinement and recovery, and expenses including counsel fees in connection with her pregnancy (Domestic Delations Law, § 120, as amd. by L. 1947, ch. 154), there was no authority in the instant case to award counsel fees to anyone but the complainant. The Commissioner of Public Welfare was not a party to the proceeding. There was no proof nor any adjudication that the child was a public charge. Had the complainant been a public welfare official, it would have been the duty of the county attorney or corporation counsel to prosecute. (Domestic Relations Law, § 137.)

The order should be reversed on the law and facts and a new trial had.

All concur. Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Order of filiation reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, without costs of this appeal to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 141, 112 N.Y.S.2d 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-borner-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack