Timothy J. T. v. Karen J. H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Timothy J. T. v. Karen J. H.

251 A.D.2d 1036, 673 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7095

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

DecidedJune 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 1036 (Timothy J. T. v. Karen J. H.) 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

Timothy J. T. v. Karen J. H., 251 A.D.2d 1036, 673 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record establishes that petitioner was the defendant in a divorce action in Supreme Court and that, in a verified answer therein, he denied the allegation of respondent that he was the father of her child. The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement pursuant to which respondent withdrew her allegation, and the stipulation was incorporated in the divorce decree. The issue of paternity was resolved in the divorce action in accordance with the position petitioner took in his sworn answer in that action, and he had a full and fair opportunity to contest the issue. Thus, Family Court properly determined that petitioner is collaterally estopped from maintaining a paternity proceeding against respondent (see, Matter of Sandra I v Harold I, 54 AD2d 1040, 1041-1042; see generally, Schwartz v Public Adm’r of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71). (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Family Court, Parenti, J. — Paternity.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record establishes that petitioner was the defendant in a divorce action in Supreme Court and that, in a verified answer therein, he denied the allegation of respondent that he was the father of her child. The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement pursuant to which respondent withdrew her allegation, and the stipulation was incorporated in the divorce decree. The issue of paternity was resolved in the divorce action in accordance with the position petitioner took in his sworn answer in that action, and he had a full and fair opportunity to contest the issue. Thus, Family Court properly determined that petitioner is collaterally estopped from maintaining a paternity proceeding against respondent (see, Matter of Sandra I v Harold I, 54 AD2d 1040, 1041-1042; see generally, Schwartz v Public Adm’r of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65, 71). (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Family Court, Parenti, J. — Paternity.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 1036, 673 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-j-t-v-karen-j-h-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack