Opinion
1445
June 20, 2002.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2000, dismissing this paternity proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
JULIAN A. HERTZ, for Petitioner-appellant.
Saxe J.P., Sullivan, Lerner, Rubin, Friedman, JJ.
We reject petitioner's claim that she was not "in any realistic sense" afforded the hearing to which she was entitled under Family Court Act § 531. The record shows that a hearing was scheduled at which respondent did not appear and petitioner appeared without an attorney; that petitioner testified that she had sexual relations only with respondent during the relevant period of time; and that after giving petitioner an opportunity to challenge blood test results excluding respondent's paternity as a virtual certainty, Family Court admitted the test results into evidence and dismissed the petition (compare, Matter of Juliet C. v. Gerard B., 202 A.D.2d 196; Matter of Donald I. v. Teresa K., 221 A.D.2d 862) . Whether petitioner's testimony was "clear and convincing" and "entirely satisfactory" to create "a genuine belief" of respondent's paternity (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Philip De G., 59 N.Y.2d 137, 141-142), notwithstanding the blood test results, is essentially an issue of credibility and we perceive no reason to disturb Family Court's resolution. Nor did Family Court improperly refuse plaintiff a second blood test, where the only reason she gave for suspecting the test results was that her and the child's blood was taken in New York while respondent's blood was taken in Georgia where some unspecified mistake must have been made (compare,Matter of Shepherd v. Skeete, 169 A.D.2d 626; cf., Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Jean-Claude B., 137 Misc.2d 612, 613-614, explaining Matter of Leromain v. Venduro, 114 A.D.2d 634).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.