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.
IN RE: Proceeding, etc., MEAGHAN E.A., Under the Uniform Support of Dependents Law, Domestic Relations Law Article 3-A. South Carolina Department of Social Services, as Assignee of Caprice A., Petitioner-Respondent, v. JOHN T.H., Respondent-Appellant.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about February 2, 1998, which, in a support proceeding, adjudicated respondent to be the father of petitioner's child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
At respondent's request, we treated his notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal, and granted the application with petitioner's consent (see, Matter of M.C. v. O.C., 270 A.D.2d 48, 703 N.Y.S.2d 483).
Appellant's paternity was established by clear and convincing evidence, including, in particular, a blood genetic marker test indicating a 99.68% probability of paternity that created a presumption of paternity (CPLR 4518 [d]; see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. [Chalise B.] v. Corey A., 239 A.D.2d 286, 658 N.Y.S.2d 20). The presumption was reinforced by the negative inference that the court properly drew from respondent's refusal to undergo additional genetic testing (see, Fitzgerald v. Tamola, 199 A.D.2d 122, 123, 605 N.Y.S.2d 67), including DNA testing that was not routinely conducted in the early 1990s when the blood genetic marker test was conducted in a prior paternity and support proceeding that was dismissed without prejudice (cf., Matter of Sullivan County Dept. of Social Servs. [Sherri P.] v. Praytush O., 223 A.D.2d 972, 974-975, 636 N.Y.S.2d 891). Indeed, such additional testing could only have helped respondent, who denied that he had even met petitioner prior to the child's birth. The internal inconsistencies in petitioner's various sworn statements concerning whether, when and to whom she revealed her pregnancy and whether respondent ever acknowledged it, and proven inaccuracies in her testimony concerning her meeting with certain of respondent's family members, do not warrant disturbing Family Court's finding, based largely on credibility (see, Matter of Sullivan County Dept. of Social Servs. [Sherri P.] v. Praytush O., 223 A.D.2d 972, 974, 636 N.Y.S.2d 891), that petitioner had sexual relations with respondent and with no one else during the relevant time period, and do not otherwise render the evidence of paternity less than clear and convincing (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. [Celia D.] v. Hector S., 216 A.D.2d 81, 84, 628 N.Y.S.2d 270).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 25, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)