Rodriguez v. Purdy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Purdy

56 A.D.2d 804, 392 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11097

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 804 (Rodriguez v. Purdy) 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

Rodriguez v. Purdy, 56 A.D.2d 804, 392 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Family Court, New York County, entered September 17, 1976, directing the entry of three orders of filiation with respect to three children, and directing the entry of a support order of $200 to be paid by appellant biweekly for the maintenance of the children, are each unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the matters are remitted to the Family Court for new fact-finding hearings on all issues. Appellant, putative father, recently discharged from a hospital after serious brain surgery, was alleged to be the father of the three children involved in this filiation proceeding. Section 531 of the Family Court Act provides that in such a proceeding "the respondent shall not be compelled to testify.” Just as in the cases cited below: "Appellant appeared at the trial without counsel. Under the circumstances, the trial court erred in putting questions to him without first advising him of his statutory right to refuse to testify. (Family Ct. Act, § 531; Matter of Howard v. Robinson, 32 A D 2d 837; Matter of Dean v. Young, 31 A D 2d 630).” (Matter of Valerie H. v Koene D. B., 38 AD2d 728.) Furthermore, the record does not indicate that there was appropriate proof of either the children’s requirements or appellant’s own expenses and obligations in fixing the amount of support. (Matter of Silvestris v Silvestris, 24 AD2d 247, 250.) Concur—Birns, J. P., Silverman, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Orders, Family Court, New York County, entered September 17, 1976, directing the entry of three orders of filiation with respect to three children, and directing the entry of a support order of $200 to be paid by appellant biweekly for the maintenance of the children, are each unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the matters are remitted to the Family Court for new fact-finding hearings on all issues. Appellant, putative father, recently discharged from a hospital after serious brain surgery, was alleged to be the father of the three children involved in this filiation proceeding. Section 531 of the Family Court Act provides that in such a proceeding "the respondent shall not be compelled to testify.” Just as in the cases cited below: "Appellant appeared at the trial without counsel. Under the circumstances, the trial court erred in putting questions to him without first advising him of his statutory right to refuse to testify. (Family Ct. Act, § 531; Matter of Howard v. Robinson, 32 A D 2d 837; Matter of Dean v. Young, 31 A D 2d 630).” (Matter of Valerie H. v Koene D. B., 38 AD2d 728.) Furthermore, the record does not indicate that there was appropriate proof of either the children’s requirements or appellant’s own expenses and obligations in fixing the amount of support. (Matter of Silvestris v Silvestris, 24 AD2d 247, 250.) Concur—Birns, J. P., Silverman, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 804, 392 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-purdy-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack