Whittaker v. Bicknell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whittaker v. Bicknell

125 A.D.2d 962, 510 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63147

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 962 (Whittaker v. Bicknell) 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

Whittaker v. Bicknell, 125 A.D.2d 962, 510 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and matter remitted to Herkimer County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner’s testimony in this filiation proceeding that the child was born after a "normal length of pregnancy or period of gestation”, that she was neither early nor late with her pregnancy and that her "periods” were regular within the year before she became pregnant established a prima facie case and Family Court erred in dismissing the petition at the close of her proof. The only inference that can be drawn from this testimony is that the pregnancy was within the normal range and that the baby was full term. Although no proof was submitted as to the specific date of impregnation or the date of petitioner’s last menstrual period, the record reflects that the parties engaged in intercourse during October and November 1981 which, in this case, is well within the range of the normal period of gestation (see, Matter of Erie County Commr. of Social Servs. v Boyd, 74 AD2d 728). Any inconsistency in the testimony must be resolved by the court at the conclusion of the whole case. Whether the court will dismiss the petition is a matter for it to determine after a full hearing. (Appeal from order of Herkimer County Family Court, Blaugrund, J. — paternity.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and matter remitted to Herkimer County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner’s testimony in this filiation proceeding that the child was born after a "normal length of pregnancy or period of gestation”, that she was neither early nor late with her pregnancy and that her "periods” were regular within the year before she became pregnant established a prima facie case and Family Court erred in dismissing the petition at the close of her proof. The only inference that can be drawn from this testimony is that the pregnancy was within the normal range and that the baby was full term. Although no proof was submitted as to the specific date of impregnation or the date of petitioner’s last menstrual period, the record reflects that the parties engaged in intercourse during October and November 1981 which, in this case, is well within the range of the normal period of gestation (see, Matter of Erie County Commr. of Social Servs. v Boyd, 74 AD2d 728). Any inconsistency in the testimony must be resolved by the court at the conclusion of the whole case. Whether the court will dismiss the petition is a matter for it to determine after a full hearing. (Appeal from order of Herkimer County Family Court, Blaugrund, J. — paternity.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 962, 510 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whittaker-v-bicknell-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack