Tamara B. v. Pete F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tamara B. v. Pete F.

220 A.D.2d 318, 632 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10420

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 318 (Tamara B. v. Pete F.) 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

Tamara B. v. Pete F., 220 A.D.2d 318, 632 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered on or about April 28, 1994, which denied petitioner’s motion for a new trial in this paternity proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A prior effort by petitioner to have DNA tests performed on herself, respondent and the subject child was rejected by this Court in its remand of the case for the purpose of allowing respondent to introduce rebuttal expert testimony on the interpretation of HLA blood tests (Tamara B. v Pete F., 157 AD2d 636, amdg Tamara B. v Pete F., 146 AD2d 487). The issue of whether there should be DNA testing was decided at that time, and, as a matter of law, the case should not be reconsidered now (see, Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d 887, Iv denied 56 NY2d 507). Nor is a new trial warranted by petitioner’s claimed "newly-discovered evidence” (CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). The vague and conclusory statements of petitioner and the two newly proposed witnesses are insufficient to show why the latter were unavailable and when and how contact was reestablished (cf., Cizler v Cizler, 19 AD2d 819). Petitioner admits that her "newly discovered” tape recording of conversations was in her possession at the time of the fact-finding hearing. It is also not clear how this evidence, which could only serve to undermine the credibility of adverse witnesses, would probably produce a different result (see, Teichner v W & J Holsteins, 161 AD2d 454, Iv dismissed 77 NY2d 873). Similarly, even if an HLA blood test of one of petitioner’s paramours conclusively excluded him as the father, as petitioner contends, that would hardly be clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s paternity, given that an HLA test indicated a relatively low probability of respondent’s paternity, and the numerous men who had sexual relations with petitioner during the possible conception period. Finally, petitioner’s claims of respondent’s "fraud, misrepresentation and misconduct” are raised for the first time on appeal, and therefore not properly before us (Ku v Gu, 186 AD2d [319]*31988). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered on or about April 28, 1994, which denied petitioner’s motion for a new trial in this paternity proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A prior effort by petitioner to have DNA tests performed on herself, respondent and the subject child was rejected by this Court in its remand of the case for the purpose of allowing respondent to introduce rebuttal expert testimony on the interpretation of HLA blood tests (Tamara B. v Pete F., 157 AD2d 636, amdg Tamara B. v Pete F., 146 AD2d 487). The issue of whether there should be DNA testing was decided at that time, and, as a matter of law, the case should not be reconsidered now (see, Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d 887, Iv denied 56 NY2d 507). Nor is a new trial warranted by petitioner’s claimed "newly-discovered evidence” (CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). The vague and conclusory statements of petitioner and the two newly proposed witnesses are insufficient to show why the latter were unavailable and when and how contact was reestablished (cf., Cizler v Cizler, 19 AD2d 819). Petitioner admits that her "newly discovered” tape recording of conversations was in her possession at the time of the fact-finding hearing. It is also not clear how this evidence, which could only serve to undermine the credibility of adverse witnesses, would probably produce a different result (see, Teichner v W & J Holsteins, 161 AD2d 454, Iv dismissed 77 NY2d 873). Similarly, even if an HLA blood test of one of petitioner’s paramours conclusively excluded him as the father, as petitioner contends, that would hardly be clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s paternity, given that an HLA test indicated a relatively low probability of respondent’s paternity, and the numerous men who had sexual relations with petitioner during the possible conception period. Finally, petitioner’s claims of respondent’s "fraud, misrepresentation and misconduct” are raised for the first time on appeal, and therefore not properly before us (Ku v Gu, 186 AD2d [319]*31988). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 318, 632 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tamara-b-v-pete-f-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack