Court Opinion

ID: 9584690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:51:43.452762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:31.224069
License: Public Domain

Judge Walker
concurring.
I concur in this opinion; however, I write separately to express concern over the actions taken by the district court in this case.
The record shows that at the time the defendant made the motion to compel blood testing on 18 September 1987, an attorney for the State was listed who apparently represented the plaintiffs interest. Defendant was represented throughout by a court-appointed attorney. When the order to compel blood testing was entered on 21 December 1987, there is no evidence that plaintiff was represented by counsel. At that time, the youngest of the children ordered to submit to blood group testing was eleven years old.
Thereafter, there were five separate hearings resulting in orders entered by the district court, but there is no evidence that plaintiff was represented by counsel. Before proceeding with matters such as those involved in this case, the trial court should have inquired and insisted that plaintiff’s interest in this Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Action be represented by counsel. Ordinarily, the District Attorney’s Office would represent a plaintiff’s interest in these actions.
If the plaintiff’s interest had been represented at the hearings, it is apparent that the district court would have had a different perspective on the issues before the court. The State of New York, as it expressed in correspondence contained in the record, had every reason to be disturbed by the actions taken by the district court.