Opinion
March 9, 1949.
Appeal from Children's Court, Schenectady County.
The order is based on the uncorroborated testimony of complainant of a single act of intercourse with defendant in the month of January, 1947, the period of probable conception of a child born October 11, 1947. Intercourse between the parties some months previous to this is conceded. Complainant admits intercourse during the fall of 1946 with two other men. She admits intercourse in November, 1946, two months before conception, on two occasions with one of these men which left so little impression on her that she did not take the trouble to ascertain the man's name. Her specific allocation of a single act of intercourse within a particular month to the defendant, therefore, should be accepted cautiously and with reservation. She had a slip of paper from her physician fixing the dates of probable conception; checked a newspaper file to find the date of death of an uncle of defendant in January, 1947, and fixed the intercourse which produced conception as between the death and funeral of defendant's uncle. Reliability of complainant's proof is a minimal requirement to support a charge of paternity ( People ex rel. Mendelovich v. Abrahams, 96 App. Div. 27; Drummond v. Dolan, 155 App. Div. 449; Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of N.Y. v. Ryan, 238 App. Div. 607; Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of N.Y. v. Kotel, 256 App. Div. 352). Corroboration is not necessary ( People ex rel. Kenfield v. Lyon, 83 Hun 303; Commissioner of Public Charities of City of N.Y. v. Vassie, 167 App. Div. 74), but without corroboration credibility is closely examined ( People v. McKay, 72 App. Div. 527). In a sharply contested issue of this sort, collateral proof by other witnesses may be helpful. The woman complainant asked to testify for her; people, other than relatives of defendant, at the wake and funeral of his uncle; people in complainant's home at the time of the alleged intercourse, may aid in a careful determination, as well as the official record of date of defendant's discharge from the army. Other avenues of inquiry are suggested by the record. There should be a thorough and careful re-examination of all available collateral facts. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial directed. Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ., concur.