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.
— Richard E. Winkler, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Joe Sherman, also known as Joeseph Daniel Sherman, also known as Joseph Sherman, Defendant–Respondent, New York State Legislature, Defendant.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered December 19, 2014, which granted defendant Sherman's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and order, same court (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered May 29, 2015, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiff's motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A statute is presumed constitutional and that presumption can only be overcome by proof persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt (Hotel Dorset Co. v Trust for Cultural Resources of City of N.Y., 46 N.Y.2d 358, 370 [1978]; Local Govt. Assistance Corp v Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corp., 2 NY3d 524, 535 [2004] ). The court properly determined that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Family Court Act § 517 was unconstitutional to the extent that it placed a limitation on the time when a child could seek a paternity test, given the state's legitimate interest in securing support for a child from those legally responsible. The limitations period is not arbitrary and capricious in that by age 21, a parent may not be legally responsible for support. Moreover, plaintiff, well over 21 years of age, was not seeking support from defendant.
Plaintiff also failed to provide binding legal authority for his claim that he had a constitutional right to know the identity of his biological father, given the strong presumption that his mother's husband, who was listed on his birth certificate, is his father.
The court properly denied plaintiff's motion to renew the December 19, 2014 decision in that plaintiff failed to present new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination (Pullman v. Silverman, 125 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept 2015]; see Drillings v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 200 A.D.2d 381 [1st Dept 1994] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 580 581
Decided: March 24, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)