Tina P. v. Craig B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tina P. v. Craig B.

224 A.D.2d 933, 637 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1568

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 933 (Tina P. v. Craig B.) 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

Tina P. v. Craig B., 224 A.D.2d 933, 637 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner sustained her burden of establishing respondent’s paternity by clear and convincing evidence (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Philip De G., 59 NY2d 137, 141-142). The testimony of petitioner that she had sexual relations exclusively with respondent at the time of conception, along with the blood test result indicating a 99.99% probability of paternity, are sufficient to meet that burden (see, Matter of Julie W. v Adam S., 222 AD2d 1013). The weight to be accorded expert testimony is a matter for the trier of fact (see, Matter of Sylvestri, 44 NY2d 260, 266; Baumfeld v State of New York, 107 AD2d 927), and Family Court was justified in finding the testimony of respondent’s expert unconvincing. Further, "[t]he greatest deference should be given to the decision of the hearing Judge who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered” (Matter of McCarthy v Baiman, 125 AD2d 572). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Houston, J.H.O. — Paternity.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner sustained her burden of establishing respondent’s paternity by clear and convincing evidence (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Philip De G., 59 NY2d 137, 141-142). The testimony of petitioner that she had sexual relations exclusively with respondent at the time of conception, along with the blood test result indicating a 99.99% probability of paternity, are sufficient to meet that burden (see, Matter of Julie W. v Adam S., 222 AD2d 1013). The weight to be accorded expert testimony is a matter for the trier of fact (see, Matter of Sylvestri, 44 NY2d 260, 266; Baumfeld v State of New York, 107 AD2d 927), and Family Court was justified in finding the testimony of respondent’s expert unconvincing. Further, "[t]he greatest deference should be given to the decision of the hearing Judge who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered” (Matter of McCarthy v Baiman, 125 AD2d 572). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Houston, J.H.O. — Paternity.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 933, 637 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tina-p-v-craig-b-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack