In re Lovely M., 70 A.D.3d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2010). · Go Syfert
In re Lovely M., 70 A.D.3d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 516 Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 27, 2009, which directed that DNA testing be performed on petitioner and the…1 citing caseopening of page *516 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Andrew T. v. Yana T., 74 A.D.3d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2010).published
    In all cases involving the issue of paternity, the “paramount concern” is the child’s best interests, and an order directing genetic testing therefore should not be entered prior to a hearing on the child’s best interests (see Matter of Lo…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Lovely M., an Infant, Michael McL., Petitioner Tracey M.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 18, 2010.
Published opinion
70 A.D.3d 516
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 27, 2009, which directed that DNA testing be performed on petitioner and the subject child in connection with petitioner’s unopposed paternity petition, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, further dissemination of any results of testing performed pursuant to the order hereby prohibited, and the matter remanded to Family Court for a hearing on whether DNA testing would be in the best interests of the child. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about June 25, 2009, which denied a motion by the attorney for the child to vacate the aforesaid order and enter an order of filiation declaring petitioner to be the child’s legal father, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The court erred in ordering DNA testing without first conducting a hearing to determine whether DNA testing would be in the child’s best interests (see Family Ct Act § 532 [a]; Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 329-330 [2006]; Matter of Darlene L.-B. v Claudio B., 27 AD3d 564 [2006]). We find the existing record too fragmentary to permit the conclusion that[*517] DNA testing would not be in the child’s best interests. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Ren wick, DeGrasse and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.