Stacie O. v. Luciano B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stacie O. v. Luciano B.

122 A.D.2d 881, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59367

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

DecidedAugust 15, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.2d 881 (Stacie O. v. Luciano 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

Stacie O. v. Luciano B., 122 A.D.2d 881, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the appeal, by permission, is from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Westchester County (Kaiser, J.), entered July 19, 1983, which adjudged the appellant to be the father of a child born to the petitioner on September 10, 1980.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Since the petitioner produced a witness who testified with [882]*882personal knowledge that the human leukocyte antigen test was prepared and kept in the regular course of business of the testing laboratory, the Family Court properly admitted the results of the test (CPLR 4518 [a]), which showed the probability of paternity to be 95.1%. Moreover, inasmuch as there was no evidence that any man other than the appellant had sexual intercourse with the petitioner during the critical period (cf. Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ., 65 NY2d 994, 996), the petitioner met her burden of proof in establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant was the father of the child (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Patricia A.] v Philip De G., 59 NY2d 137, 141-142). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

— In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the appeal, by permission, is from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Westchester County (Kaiser, J.), entered July 19, 1983, which adjudged the appellant to be the father of a child born to the petitioner on September 10, 1980.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Since the petitioner produced a witness who testified with [882]*882personal knowledge that the human leukocyte antigen test was prepared and kept in the regular course of business of the testing laboratory, the Family Court properly admitted the results of the test (CPLR 4518 [a]), which showed the probability of paternity to be 95.1%. Moreover, inasmuch as there was no evidence that any man other than the appellant had sexual intercourse with the petitioner during the critical period (cf. Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ., 65 NY2d 994, 996), the petitioner met her burden of proof in establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant was the father of the child (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Patricia A.] v Philip De G., 59 NY2d 137, 141-142). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 881, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stacie-o-v-luciano-b-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack