Opinion
December 28, 1987
Appeal from the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenberg, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
As we noted in our previous decision in this matter, the testimonial evidence presented to the Family Court was inconclusive and involved "sharp questions of credibility" (Matter of Denise H. v John C., supra). The Family Court did not err in refusing to credit the testimony of the petitioner to the extent that it conflicted with that of the respondent, who testified that he had had no sexual contact with the petitioner since the spring of 1982, well in advance of the time that the infant in question was conceived. The Family Court's resolution of the conflict between the parties' testimony is entitled to great weight (see, e.g., Matter of Fannie R.H. v Charles E., 116 A.D.2d 576). The results of the human leukocyte antigen test, while highly probative, are not conclusive (see, e.g., Matter of Terri OO. v Michael QQ., 132 A.D.2d 812; Matter of Moon v Mark A., 109 A.D.2d 1017; Matter of Julie UU. v Joseph VV., 108 A.D.2d 1038, 1039). Thus, the Family Court correctly determined that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving paternity by clear and convincing evidence (see, Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ., 65 N.Y.2d 994, 996; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Philip De G., 59 N.Y.2d 137, 141).
We have examined the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Niehoff, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.