Legal Opinion
Queal v. Queal
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 31, 1992PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
We conclude that plaintiff is not foreclosed from challenging paternity. The common-law irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy long ago was "exploded” " 'on account of its absolute nonsense’ ” (Matter of Findlay, 253 NY 1, 7). As currently formulated, the presumption of legitimacy, although still "one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law” (Matter of Findlay, supra, at 7), is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence excluding the husband as the father or otherwise tending to disprove legitimacy (see, Family Ct Act § 531; Matter of Jeanne C. v Peter W. D., 134 AD2d 779, 781,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In Re the Estate of FindlayNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Crane v. BattleNew York City Family Court · 1970
- Jeanne C. v. Peter W. D.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
3Cited by11 opinions
- Richard B. v. Sandra B. B.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Elizabeth A. P. v. Paul T. P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Hammack v. HammackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Cleophous P. v. Latrice M.R.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Sandra S. v. Larry W.New York City Family Court · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.