Puglisi v. Pignato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Puglisi v. Pignato

26 A.D.2d 817, 274 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3203

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 817 (Puglisi v. Pignato) 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

Puglisi v. Pignato, 26 A.D.2d 817, 274 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders of the Family Court entered on October 26, 1964 and January 11, 1965, adjudging respondent to be the father of a child bom to petitioner and fixing support for the said child unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered, without costs and without disbursements. Errors in the exclusion of testimony necessitate a new trial. An examination of the baptismal record of St. Finbar’s Church shows erasures and new writing over the original entry. When respondent sought to examine the supervising priest as to this, the court, without objection from the petitioner, sustained objection made by an attorney without standing. Presumably the objection was on the ground of confidential communication (CPLR 4505). There was, however, no showing or reason to believe that the information sought required the disclosure of information under the cloak of the confessional or was in any way confidential. In this closely contested ease it is impossible to say whether the excluded testimony might have produced a different result. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and Bastow, JJ.

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

Orders of the Family Court entered on October 26, 1964 and January 11, 1965, adjudging respondent to be the father of a child bom to petitioner and fixing support for the said child unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered, without costs and without disbursements. Errors in the exclusion of testimony necessitate a new trial. An examination of the baptismal record of St. Finbar’s Church shows erasures and new writing over the original entry. When respondent sought to examine the supervising priest as to this, the court, without objection from the petitioner, sustained objection made by an attorney without standing. Presumably the objection was on the ground of confidential communication (CPLR 4505). There was, however, no showing or reason to believe that the information sought required the disclosure of information under the cloak of the confessional or was in any way confidential. In this closely contested ease it is impossible to say whether the excluded testimony might have produced a different result. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 817, 274 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puglisi-v-pignato-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack