Opinion
November 19, 1990
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Rood, H.E.).
Ordered that the appeals from the three orders dated June 9, 1989, are dismissed as those orders were superseded by the order dated July 10, 1989; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated July 10, 1989, is affirmed, with costs.
Although the order of filiation is not appealable as of right, it may be reviewed on the appeal from the order dated July 10, 1989 (see, Nancy V. v. Raymond E.C., 75 A.D.2d 599; see also, Matter of Jane PP. v. Paul QQ., 64 N.Y.2d 15).
The appellant's claim that the Family Court failed to advise him of his right to a blood test (see, Family Ct Act § 532 [a]; Matter of Costello v. Timothy R., 109 A.D.2d 933) is meritless. The record indicates that the appellant acknowledged, in writing, that he understood his rights, including his "right to blood tests to show that [he] [could] not be the father", and nevertheless consented to waive them. The appellant's conclusory and belated claim that he did not comprehend the clearly and simply written admonitions provided to him at the hearing does not furnish a basis for reversal. We have examined the appellant's remaining contention and find it to be equally without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.