Sidoti v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sidoti v. Velez

278 A.D.2d 498, 718 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13844

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 498 (Sidoti v. Velez) 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

Sidoti v. Velez, 278 A.D.2d 498, 718 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish paternity, Miguel Velez appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), dated January 4, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate an order of filiation of the same court (Hochberg, H.E.), dated June 22, 1998.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Family Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of filiation as the Hearing Examiner properly advised him of his statutory rights before he admitted to paternity of the subject child (see, Matter of McLeod v Emanuel, 268 AD2d 434; see, Matter of Smith v Wamsley, 265 AD2d 663; Matter of Marianne R. v Richard C., 150 AD2d 378, 379). Moreover, the appellant’s admission was knowing and voluntary (see, Matter of McLeod v Emanuel, supra). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish paternity, Miguel Velez appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), dated January 4, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate an order of filiation of the same court (Hochberg, H.E.), dated June 22, 1998.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Family Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of filiation as the Hearing Examiner properly advised him of his statutory rights before he admitted to paternity of the subject child (see, Matter of McLeod v Emanuel, 268 AD2d 434; see, Matter of Smith v Wamsley, 265 AD2d 663; Matter of Marianne R. v Richard C., 150 AD2d 378, 379). Moreover, the appellant’s admission was knowing and voluntary (see, Matter of McLeod v Emanuel, supra). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 498, 718 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sidoti-v-velez-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack