Ricky M. v. Sharon B.

49 A.D.2d 1035, 374 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11398
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 31, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 1035 (Ricky M. v. Sharon B.) 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
Ricky M. v. Sharon B., 49 A.D.2d 1035, 374 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

Order, insofar as it dismissed petition for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for a hearing in accordance with memorandum, and otherwise order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his petition under article 5 of the Family Court Act to have himself declared the father of an illegitimate child were dismissed by Family Court "on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction”. Under Stanley v Illinois (405 US 645), as interpreted by Matter of Malpica-Orsini (36 NY2d 568), certain minimal rights are extended to the natural father of an illegitimate child. Section 70 of the Domestic Relations Law confers on a parent a right to maintain a habeas corpus proceeding. Since the petition alleges that appellant is a parent, the proceeding could not be dismissed. The habeas corpus proceeding is an appropriate one in which appellant may establish his status as a party entitled to maintain a habeas corpus proceeding and as a natural father entitled to his constitutional rights under Orsini and Stanley. The Family Court properly dismissed appellant’s paternity petition, since under article 5 of the Family Court Act an unwed father is not authorized to bring such proceeding. No constitutional challenge is made of the restriction of authorized petitioners; and we do not decide that issue. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court in habeas corpus and paternity proceeding.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Mahoney, Del Vecchio and Witmer, JJ.

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

Related

Rose v. Walrad
278 A.D.2d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Linda B. v. Deborah C.
152 Misc. 2d 496 (NYC Family Court, 1991)
La Croix v. Deyo
88 A.D.2d 1077 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Gloria S. v. Richard B.
80 A.D.2d 72 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
In re Mitchell
70 A.D.2d 367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Johannesen v. Pfeiffer
387 A.2d 1113 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1978)
Boatwright v. Otero
91 Misc. 2d 653 (New York Family Court, 1977)
Raysor v. Gabbey
57 A.D.2d 437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.2d 1035, 374 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricky-m-v-sharon-b-nyappdiv-1975.