Narrative Opinion Summary
In a decision by the Family Court of New York County, the court addressed the respondent's motion to vacate an order of filiation and conduct a new DNA test based on newly-discovered evidence. The respondent argued that evidence demonstrating his absence during the conception period was not considered, but the court found that this evidence was available before the original order was issued. Moreover, the court emphasized that the respondent's assumptions about the conception timeline were incorrect. The motion also sought a new DNA test using previously untested specimens, despite existing results indicating a 99.99% probability of paternity after testing stipulated by both parties. The court reinforced the prior findings, noting no evidence of mishandling the blood samples, which had already shown a 99.81% probability of paternity. Consequently, the court determined that it was unnecessary for the petitioner to establish the chain of custody for the certified tests. The decision was reached unanimously, affirming the Family Court's order and leaving the original determination of paternity intact.
Legal Issues Addressed
Chain of Custody in Certified Testssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the petitioner was not required to prove the chain of custody or foundational aspects for the certified tests.
Reasoning: The petitioner was not required to prove the chain of custody or foundational aspects for these certified tests.
DNA Evidence and Paternitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the use of DNA evidence indicating a 99.99% probability of paternity, dismissing claims of improper handling of blood samples.
Reasoning: Regarding the DNA testing, conducted after the original order under the parties' stipulation, the results indicated a 99.99% probability of the respondent’s paternity.
Motion to Vacate Order of Filiationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the respondent's motion to vacate the order of filiation because the evidence was available prior to the issuance of the original order.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the denial, ruling that the evidence the respondent sought to introduce, which purportedly demonstrated his absence from the child's mother during the possible conception period, was available to him prior to the issuance of the original order.