Legal Opinion

Rodoe v. Noneus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 20, 1965PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

There have been so many irregularities in these proceedings that the paternity order 'and provision for support of the child must be reversed. This determination is made without reaching the question of weight -and quality of the proof. At the threshold of the proceedings there was a fundamental jurisdictional error in the manner of its commencement which requires a dismissal of the petition, without consideration of the merits. Service of the summons and petition was made by mailing them to respondent-appellant. There was no proof of their delivery but more significantly there is no proof…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Joseph E. Blouin, Jr., and Fred Griese v. Hon. Nanette DembitzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
  2. Blouin v. DembitzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
  3. Beverly E. v. William H.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  4. Russo v. TeallNew York City Family Court · 1978
  5. Walsh v. WalshNew York City Family Court · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API