Smeido v. Jansons

23 A.D.2d 796, 259 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4374
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 26, 1965·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 5 of the Family Court Act to establish the paternity of a child expected to be born out of wedlock and to provide for its support, the putative father appeals, by permission of this court, from a resettled order of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered November 27, 1964, which denied his motion to dismiss the petition. Resettled order affirmed, without costs. In support of the motion it was contended: (1) that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter in that the recovery of a sum of money only is sought and that such a claim is constitutionally required to be tried by a jury on the demand of either party, and not by the court alone; and (2) that section 531 of the Family Court Act, which provides that the trial in paternity proceedings shall be “by the court without a jury ”, is unconstitutional. For the reasons stated by the learned Justice of the Family Court, we find these contentions to be legally untenable. Beldóck, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Smeido v. Jansons, 23 A.D.2d 796, 259 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

23 A.D.2d 796 (Smeido v. Jansons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dunn v. Davis
725 S.W.2d 853 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1987)
E.R.B. v. J.H.F.
496 A.2d 607 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1985)
State v. Speed
640 P.2d 13 (Washington Supreme Court, 1982)
Cahill v. State
411 A.2d 317 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1980)
Comish v. Smith
540 P.2d 274 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1975)