Thomas F. v. Victoria G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas F. v. Victoria G.

194 A.D.2d 670, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1000

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

DecidedJune 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 670 (Thomas F. v. Victoria G.) 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

Thomas F. v. Victoria G., 194 A.D.2d 670, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish paternity, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.), dated February 26, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding without a hearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly dismissed the proceeding without a hearing, since the blood tests conclusively excluded the possibility of paternity and the authenticity of the test results was not challenged (see, Family Ct Act § 532; Ghaznavi v Gordon, 163 AD2d 194, 195). We find no merit to the petitioner’s contention that the unmarried mother was estopped from denying that the petitioner was the father of the child (cf., Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6; Matter of Sharon GG. v Duane HH., 95 AD2d 466, affd 63 NY2d 859). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, 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, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.), dated February 26, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding without a hearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly dismissed the proceeding without a hearing, since the blood tests conclusively excluded the possibility of paternity and the authenticity of the test results was not challenged (see, Family Ct Act § 532; Ghaznavi v Gordon, 163 AD2d 194, 195). We find no merit to the petitioner’s contention that the unmarried mother was estopped from denying that the petitioner was the father of the child (cf., Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6; Matter of Sharon GG. v Duane HH., 95 AD2d 466, affd 63 NY2d 859). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 670, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-f-v-victoria-g-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack