Thompson v. Nichols

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Nichols

286 A.D. 810, 141 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4190

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

DecidedJune 14, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 286 A.D. 810 (Thompson v. Nichols) 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

Thompson v. Nichols, 286 A.D. 810, 141 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

At the times of the conception and birth giving rise to the order of filiation, complainant was living in the same apartment with her husband. Both complainant and her husband assert that they were not cohabiting at the time of the conception and that they were estranged, although residing in proximity of adjoining rooms under a common roof. The husband signed the birth certificate as the father of the child. Complainant and her husband have since admittedly resumed normal living and marital relations. We cannot regard the evidence of defendant’s alleged paternity of the child sufficiently satisfactory under the circumstances to overcome the strongest presumption of the law, the presumption of legitimacy. Order unanimously reversed and the complaint dismissed. Concur — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Botein, JJ.

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

At the times of the conception and birth giving rise to the order of filiation, complainant was living in the same apartment with her husband. Both complainant and her husband assert that they were not cohabiting at the time of the conception and that they were estranged, although residing in proximity of adjoining rooms under a common roof. The husband signed the birth certificate as the father of the child. Complainant and her husband have since admittedly resumed normal living and marital relations. We cannot regard the evidence of defendant’s alleged paternity of the child sufficiently satisfactory under the circumstances to overcome the strongest presumption of the law, the presumption of legitimacy. Order unanimously reversed and the complaint dismissed. Concur — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Botein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 810, 141 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-nichols-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack