You are here: / / THE GENETIC MARKER TESTING TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...

THE GENETIC MARKER TESTING TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department. reversing Family Court, determined genetic marker testing to establish paternity should not have ordered without holding a hearing to determine if the testing is in the best interests of the child:

We agree with the mother that the court erred in ordering genetic marker testing without first holding a hearing to determine whether testing was in the best interests of the child. It is undisputed that, at the time of the child’s birth, respondents were married to one another, and respondents alleged that they had access to each other during the relevant time frame such that the presumption of legitimacy would apply. Although the court has the authority to order genetic marker and DNA testing in order to establish paternity, “[n]o such test shall be ordered . . . upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of . . . the presumption of legitimacy of a child born to a married woman” … . On this record, “[t]here was insufficient evidence before the court to determine the child’s best interests,” and we thus conclude that, before ordering the genetic marker test, the court should have conducted a hearing to determine whether it was in the best interests of the child to do so, based on the presumption of legitimacy … . Matter of Kirk M.B. v Rachel S., 2021 NY Slip Op 01602, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

You might also like
Failure to Make Motion for Trial Order of Dismissal Not Ineffective Assistance
The Absence of Plaintiff’s (Buyer’s) Attorney’s Explicit Unconditional Approval of the Purchase Contract Invalidated the Contract, Despite Plaintiff’s Desire to Go Through with the Purchase
FAMILY COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A PERMANENCY HEARING (RE: PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE) AFTER THE UNDERLYING NEGLECT PETITION (WHICH LED TO TEMPORARY PLACEMENT) HAS BEEN DISMISSED.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, A DE FACTO MERGER OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR WITH THE CURRENT DEFENDANT WAS DEMONSTRATED (FOURTH DEPT).
Naming Different Victim Rendered Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective
Resentencing After Original Sentence Expired Violates Double Jeopardy Clause
WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXCESS COVERAGE POLICIES COVERING THE SAME RISK, THE EXCESS COVERAGE CLAUSES CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT (FOURTH DEPT).
AIR FRESHENERS HANGING FROM REAR-VIEW MIRROR PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE JUSTIFYING VEHICLE STOP.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PROOF OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESION OF WEAPONS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH... THE CONTEMPT APPLICATIONS IN THIS NEGLECT/CUSTODY PROCEEDING WERE JURISDICTIONALLY...