Opinion
March 12, 1993
Appeal from the Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We deem the notice of appeal from the order of filiation to be an application for leave to appeal from that order, and, in the exercise of our discretion, grant leave to appeal (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Erie County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Abdallah [appeal No. 2], 187 A.D.2d 967; Matter of Louise S. v. Timothy E. [appeal No. 2], 187 A.D.2d 994).
Petitioner met her burden of establishing paternity "by 'clear and convincing' evidence, evidence which is 'entirely satisfactory' and creates a genuine belief that respondent is the father of the child" (Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Philip De G., 59 N.Y.2d 137, 141-142). The HLA blood test, which indicates that there is a 99.98% probability that respondent is the child's father, is entitled to great weight (see, Swann v Schoenfield, 163 A.D.2d 850, 851, lv dismissed sub nom. Nicholas S. v. Schoenfield, 76 N.Y.2d 889). Contrary to respondent's argument, the blood test report, bearing authentication by a proper officer of the testing laboratory, met the requirements of CPLR 4518 (c) and was properly received into evidence (see, Matter of Amy J. v. Brian K., 161 A.D.2d 1022).
The entry in the mother's hospital record, stating that the child was delivered at 31 weeks gestation, is sufficient to corroborate the mother's testimony that the birth was two months premature (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Philip De G., supra, at 140). A gestational period of 31 weeks is consistent with the evidence relating to the mother's last menstrual period (see generally, Matter of Apuzzo v. Slesinsky, 97 A.D.2d 615; Matter of Erie County Commr. of Social Servs. v Boyd, 74 A.D.2d 728, 729).
Respondent had an opportunity to controvert the mother's testimony that he was her only sexual partner from the time of her last menstrual period until conception, but respondent chose not to testify. Given respondent's failure to testify, Family Court was permitted "to draw the strongest inference against him that the opposing evidence in the record permits" (Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Philip De G., supra, at 141; accord, Matter of Reidy v. Jeffrey K., 125 A.D.2d 825, 826).