Hodson v. Hoff
| Decision Date | 20 July 1943 |
| Citation | 50 N.E.2d 648,291 N.Y. 518 |
| Parties | William HODSON, Respondent, v. William HOFF, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 266 App.Div. 228, 42 N.Y.S.2d 1.
Three separate paternity proceedings by William Hodson, as Commissioner of Welfare, on the complaint of Bertha Giesecke Hoff against William Hoff. Despite an existent marriage between defendant and another woman, the parties participated in a marriage ceremony in 1923. In October 1934 they entered into a written agreement in Domestic Relations Court whereby defendant acknowledged his liability for the support of the three children born of the union with complainant and agreed to pay the sum of $15 a week for their support. By order of that court, made in February of 1935, the amount was increased to $19 a week, so as to include support for the complainant.
A paternity proceeding was instituted in the Court of Special Sessions and the trial took place on August 15, 1939. On the testimony of the complainant that she was married to the defendant, the proceeding was dismissed ‘without prejudice.’ Another proceeding followed in the Domestic Relations Court on March 25, 1940 with no result. In the meantime a new paternity proceeding was instituted in the Court of Special Sessions in October 1939, and another trial was had on June 25, 1940. Again the complainant testified that she was married to the defendant, and again the proceeding was dismissed.
The orders of filiation under review in this case were made at the retrial. The defendant's sole contention was that by reason of the previous paternity proceeding, tried on August 15, 1939, he was subjected to double jeopardy if it was a criminal prosecution, or that the matter was res judicata if it was a civil proceeding.
The Appellate Division, 266 App.Div. 228, 42 N.Y.S.2d 1, in affirming the orders pointed out that the primary question presented on the appeal was whether the trial of a defendant in a paternity proceeding, pursuant to Article V of the New York City Criminal Courts Act, constitutes jeopardy within the purview of the state constitution, Article 1, Section 6, thus barring his prosecution in a subsequent proceeding with respect to the same child. The court held that a paternity proceeding does not constitute ‘jeopardy’ so as to bar subsequent proceeding with respect to the same child and that the dismissal of the earlier paternity proceeding without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commissioner of Welfare of City of New York v. Jones
...is not available in filiation proceedings (Hodson v. Hoff, 266 App.Div. 228, 42 N.Y.S.2d 1 (2d Dept. 1943), aff'd without opinion, 291 N.Y. 518, 50 N.E.2d 648). The same has been squarely held in Oregon (State v. Morrow, 158 Or. 412, 75 P.2d 737 (1938), rehearing denied, 158 Or. 412, 76 P.2......
-
Watson v. City of New York
... ... (Cf. Hodson v. Hoff, 266 App.Div. 228, 42 N.Y.S.2d 1, aff'd 291 N.Y. 518, 50 N.E.2d 648; Commr. of Public Welfare, etc. v. Simon, 270 N.Y. 188, 200 N.E. 781; ... ...
-
Anonymous v. Anonymous
... ... Vassie, 167 App.Div. 74, 152 N.Y.S. 496); a defense of double jeopardy is unavailable (Hodson v. Hoff, 266 App.Div. 228, 42 N.Y.S.2d 1, affirmed 291 N.Y. 518, 50 N.E.2d 648); and a judgment may be rendered in the absence of the defendant ... ...
-
Bogart, In re
...proceeding is essentially civil in nature, although partly criminal in form (Hodson v. Hoff, 266 A.D. 228, 42 N.Y.S.2d 1; aff'd 291 N.Y. 518, 50 N.E.2d 648) or perhaps 'quasi criminal' in character (Matter of Ronny, 40 Misc.2d 194, 242 N.Y.S.2d 844), the constitutional protection against do......