Shortt v. Karmin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shortt v. Karmin

23 A.D.2d 740, 258 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4426

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

DecidedApril 15, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 740 (Shortt v. Karmin) 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

Shortt v. Karmin, 23 A.D.2d 740, 258 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered August 7, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and disbursements and a new trial granted. The filiation order is not supported by convincing and satisfactory evidence. Medical testimony was presented by appellant that he was relatively sterile. While defendant admitted acts of sexual intercourse with petitioner the crucial issue was the date of conception. The proof relating thereto is far from satisfactory. A doctor called by appellant expressed the opinion upon facts assumed from testimony of petitioner and his examination of the hospital records that defendant could not have been the father of the child. Petitioner submitted no medical testimony and the hospital records of her confinement were not offered in evidence. Moreover, there was proof from petitioner’s roommate as to social engagements of petitioner with other men during the period in question that raises serious doubts as to her veracity. A new trial is required for fuller exploration of these issues. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered August 7, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and disbursements and a new trial granted. The filiation order is not supported by convincing and satisfactory evidence. Medical testimony was presented by appellant that he was relatively sterile. While defendant admitted acts of sexual intercourse with petitioner the crucial issue was the date of conception. The proof relating thereto is far from satisfactory. A doctor called by appellant expressed the opinion upon facts assumed from testimony of petitioner and his examination of the hospital records that defendant could not have been the father of the child. Petitioner submitted no medical testimony and the hospital records of her confinement were not offered in evidence. Moreover, there was proof from petitioner’s roommate as to social engagements of petitioner with other men during the period in question that raises serious doubts as to her veracity. A new trial is required for fuller exploration of these issues. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 740, 258 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shortt-v-karmin-nyappdiv-1965.