Opinion
2001-04083.
Decided December 8, 2003.
In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the putative father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated April 10, 2001, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate an order of filiation of the same court (Mayeri, H.E.), dated January 25, 1999.
Gabriella F. Richman, for appellant.
Carol Sherman, (Sheila A. O'Shea and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), Law Guardian for the child.
Before: SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly denied the appellant's motion to vacate the order of filiation as the Hearing Examiner properly advised the appellant of his statutory rights and the admission was knowingly and voluntarily made ( see Matter of McLeod v. Emanuel, 268 A.D.2d 434; Matter of Sidoti v. Velez, 278 A.D.2d 498) . Further, the appellant failed to come forward with any new evidence which could not have been discovered with due diligence before he admitted to paternity of the subject child ( see Matter of Croft v. Gordon, 297 A.D.2d 344).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.