From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Delia v. Spina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 10, 1987
132 A.D.2d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

July 10, 1987

Appeal from the Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner failed to prove paternity by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence which creates a genuine belief that respondent is the father of the child (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Philip De G., 59 N.Y.2d 137, 141-142). In view of the inconsistencies in petitioner's testimony concerning her other sexual partners, the court was entitled to find that she lacked credibility with respect to her denials of access by men other than respondent during the relevant time period.

It was not reversible error for the court to permit respondent to use records of petitioner's confinement for mental illness for purposes of cross-examination. Contrary to her argument on appeal, petitioner did not raise the physician-patient privilege. In any event, the court did not rely on the records or on petitioner's testimony concerning her psychological history in dismissing the petition.

We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them lacking in merit.


Summaries of

Matter of Delia v. Spina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 10, 1987
132 A.D.2d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Matter of Delia v. Spina

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FRANCINE A. DELIA, Appellant, v. JACK S. SPINA, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 10, 1987

Citations

132 A.D.2d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Matter of Francine A.D. v. Jack S.S

Decided October 15, 1987 Appeal from (4th dept: 132 A.D.2d 1006) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…

Matter of Charles

We also reject respondent's arguments concerning the inadmissibility of the school psychologist's testimony.…