Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of KELLEY C., as Parent and Legal Guardian, on Behalf of SERINA C., a Minor, Petitioner-Appellant, v. KIM M., Respondent-Respondent.
Matter of Kelley C., as Parent and Legal Guardian, on Behalf of Louis C., a Minor, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kim M., Respondent-Respondent.
Family Court properly determined that these paternity proceedings are barred by res judicata. Petitioner contends that res judicata should not apply because the court in the prior paternity proceedings dismissed the petitions therein without considering the results of DNA testing, which indicated a high probability that respondent is the children's father. The order dismissing the prior petitions was dated June 19, 1995, and Family Court Act § 532(a) was amended effective June 15, 1994 to establish a rebuttable presumption of paternity in cases in which a genetic marker or DNA test indicates a probability of paternity of 95% or greater (see, L. 1994, ch. 170, § 354). Assuming, arguendo, that the amendment relates to a procedural matter rather than a substantive right and was thus applicable to cases “currently pending in the courts” at the time it took effect (Matter of Hrouda v. Winne, 112 A.D.2d 304, 305, 491 N.Y.S.2d 749), we conclude that the amendment “cannot be used to reopen matters in which a final order or judgment has already been obtained [citation omitted] and from which the time to appeal has expired or the right of appeal has been exhausted” (Matter of Hrouda v. Winne, supra, at 305, 491 N.Y.S.2d 749). Petitioner never appealed from the prior order, and thus res judicata bars these proceedings.
Petitioner further contends that her children were not in privity with her in the prior proceedings and that, because a Law Guardian was not appointed to protect their interests in that proceeding, the children are not bound by the determination therein. We reject that contention. “[P]rivity exists between mother and child in fully litigated previous paternity proceedings brought by the mother, in the absence of some showing that the child's interests may not have been fully represented in the earlier proceeding” (Matter of Slocum v. Joseph B., 183 A.D.2d 102, 107, 588 N.Y.S.2d 930). Petitioner made no such showing.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 27, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)