Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Services

287 A.D.2d 642, 731 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9839

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 642 (Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Services) 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 v. Commissioner of Social Services, 287 A.D.2d 642, 731 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the Commissioner of Social Services on behalf of Nicole Lewis, appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (For-man, J.), entered October 18, 2000, as, upon vacating an order of filiation and temporary order of support (one paper) of the same court (Pagones, J.), entered August 27, 1998, and an order of support of the same court (Kaufman, H.E.), entered December 8, 1998, both entered upon the petitioner’s default in appearing in a prior proceeding, granted that branch of the petition which was to reimburse the petitioner for his child support payments.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Family Court that the petitioner should be reimbursed for child support payments deducted from his [643]*643salary pursuant to an order of filiation and temporary order of support and an order of support, both of which have been vacated, based on the conclusive evidence that he is not the child’s biological father (see, Hamza v Hamza, 268 AD2d 459). O’Brien, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, 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, the Commissioner of Social Services on behalf of Nicole Lewis, appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (For-man, J.), entered October 18, 2000, as, upon vacating an order of filiation and temporary order of support (one paper) of the same court (Pagones, J.), entered August 27, 1998, and an order of support of the same court (Kaufman, H.E.), entered December 8, 1998, both entered upon the petitioner’s default in appearing in a prior proceeding, granted that branch of the petition which was to reimburse the petitioner for his child support payments.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Family Court that the petitioner should be reimbursed for child support payments deducted from his [643]*643salary pursuant to an order of filiation and temporary order of support and an order of support, both of which have been vacated, based on the conclusive evidence that he is not the child’s biological father (see, Hamza v Hamza, 268 AD2d 459). O’Brien, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 642, 731 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-commissioner-of-social-services-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack