Opinion
May 25, 1983
Appeal from the Erie County Family Court, Notaro, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Denman and Green, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted, and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner alleges that respondent Stephen H. is the father of a female child born out of wedlock to Laura N. In a sworn affidavit attached to the petition, Laura N., as complaining witness, says that she engaged in sexual intercourse with respondent on several occasions during the period of conception. A motion was made by petitioner to compel respondent to submit to a human leucocyte antigen (HLA) blood tissue test pursuant to section 532 FCT of the Family Court Act. In denying the motion Family Court stated that, "If I order a fellow to take an HLA test, I am ordering him, in effect, to give evidence against himself." Section 532 FCT of the Family Court Act was amended (L 1981, ch 9, § 2, eff March 2, 1981) to allow the results of the HLA test to be received in evidence to assist the court in the determination of whether the alleged father is or is not the father of the child. Although results of an HLA blood test are not conclusive, this test has been recognized as being highly accurate on the issue of paternity ( Matter of Bowling v Coney, 91 A.D.2d 1195; Matter of Sherry K. v Carpenter, 90 A.D.2d 687, 688; see, also, Matter of Karen K. v Christopher D., 86 A.D.2d 633, 634). Upon motion of any party in a paternity proceeding, the court must order respondent putative father to submit to an HLA blood tissue test (Family Ct Act, § 532, subd [a]; see Matter of Kimiecik v Daryl E., 87 A.D.2d 284, 285). This is not violative of respondent's privilege against self incrimination (see Schmerber v California, 384 U.S. 757, 765; Matter of Linda K.L. v Robert S., 109 Misc.2d 628, 630; Matter of Jane L. v Rodney B., 108 Misc.2d 709, 711-713). Family Court shall determine who should pay the cost of the test (cf. Matter of Rachelle L. v Bruce M., 89 A.D.2d 765).