Opinion
March 4, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Esquirol, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision ( see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order taken as of right is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from an order of filiation entered in a proceeding in which an order of support is requested ( see, Family Ct Act § 1112; Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ., 64 N.Y.2d 15; Matter of Everlyn T. v Willis Charles T., 155 A.D.2d 546; Matter of Harstein [Julie S.] v Mike S., 107 A.D.2d 684); and it is further,
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed an application for leave to appeal and leave to appeal is granted ( see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]); and it is further,
Ordered that on appeal by permission, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court correctly determined that the defense of "contraceptive fraud" is not relevant to the issue of paternity ( see, Matter of L. Pamela P. v Frank S., 59 N.Y.2d 1).
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find that they do not warrant reversal. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.