Commissioner of Welfare of City of New York, on Complaint of Miranda v. Soto

• Decision Date: 18 March 1957
• Citation: 160 N.Y.S.2d 263,5 Misc.2d 449
• Parties: COMMISSIONER OF WELFARE OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, on the Complaint of Matilda MIRANDA, Complainant, v. Jose SOTO, Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of Special Sessions

Page 263

160 N.Y.S.2d 263

5 Misc.2d 449

COMMISSIONER OF WELFARE OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, on the Complaint of Matilda MIRANDA, Complainant, v. Jose SOTO, Defendant.

Court of Special Sessions of City of New York, New York County.

March 18, 1957.

Jacob Beller, New York City, for the motion.

Peter Campbell Brown, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Sidney B. Schatkin, New York City, of counsel), in opposition.

RINGEL, Justice.

This is a motion, made by the defendant in a disputed paternity proceeding, to examine the complainant before trial, with respect to certain items set forth in his notice of motion.

Applications for examinations before trial should be viewed with liberality to prevent surprise at a trial and to make the trial more efficient. 42 West 15th Street Corp. v. Friedman, 208 Misc. 123, 143 N.Y.S.2d 159.

Examination before trial in litigation to-day is accepted almost as a matter of course, Dorros, Inc., v. Dorros Bros., Inc., 274 App.Div. 11, 80 N.Y.S.2d 25.

Accordingly, the basic issue to be determined here, is whether the Civil Practice Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure should govern such an examination before trial, sought in a disputed paternity proceeding, which proceeding has been instituted in the Court of Special Sessions in the City of New York.

In the City of New York, this Court has sole jurisdiction of disputed paternity proceedings, Sec. 60, Art. V, New York City Criminal Courts Act. This court is a 'criminal' court, as distinguished from a 'civil' court. Nevertheless paternity proceedings have been held to be civil in nature though criminal in form. Hodson v. Hoff, 266 App.Div. 228, 230, 42 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2, 3, affirmed 291 N.Y. 518, 50 N.E.2d 648.

In the Hoff case, supra, Hagarty, J., stated:

'Although the procedure for the trial of a criminal prosecution and for appeals from judgments of conviction has been generally adopted to govern paternity proceedings (art. V, New York City Criminal Courts Act; Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of New York, on Complaint of Marchant v. Simon, 270 N.Y. 188, 200 N.E. 781), * * * the proceeding is essentially civil in nature, although partly criminal in form. Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of New York, on Complaint of Gordon v. Fagan, 259 App.Div. 727, 18 N.Y.S.2d 228; People v. Phalen, 49 Mich. 492, 13 N.W. 830; State ex rel. Mahnke v. Kablitz, 217 Wis. 231, 258 N.W. 840.'

This determination, that the procedure for the trial of a criminal prosecution is followed in paternity cases, has been followed by the Court of Appeals not only in its affirmance of the Hoff case, supra, but also in a later case, In the Matter of Clausi, 296 N.Y. 354, 73 N.E.2d 548, 549. In that case Judge Fuld said:

'A filiation proceeding initiated--as the present was--in a children's court, pursuant to the Domestic Relations Law, is civil and noncriminal in nature. Confirmation is furnished by the definition of a 'crime' as well as by the inherent character of a criminal prosecution. Penal Law, Consol.Laws c. 40, § 2; see, also, Hodson v. Hoff, 291 N.Y. 518, 50 N.E.2d 648. Although we have held that a paternity suit is criminal in form (Commissioner of Public Welfare [of City of New York, on Complaint of Marchant] v. Simon, 270 N.Y. 188, 191, 200 N.E. 781, 782; Hodson v. Hoff, supra), it must be observed that such statements were made, such rulings...