Whenever it becomes necessary to determine the age of a child, he may be produced and exhibited to enable the court or jury to determine his age by a personal inspection.
R 4516.Proof of age of child
Article 45. Evidence · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 4516 lets a court or jury determine a child's age through personal inspection by having the child produced and exhibited, without requiring expert medical testimony.
Full Text of CPLR 4516
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 4516 offers a direct way to settle a disputed question: how old is this child? Rather than relying only on documents or witness testimony, the rule lets the child be produced and exhibited so the court or jury can judge the age by looking at the child directly.
The rule does not require a medical exam or expert testimony; it authorizes the option of personal inspection when age becomes an issue in a case.
Frequently Asked Questions
How can a court determine a child's age under CPLR 4516?
By having the child produced and exhibited so the court or jury can inspect the child personally to judge the age.
Does CPLR 4516 require a doctor's examination to prove a child's age?
No. The rule authorizes personal inspection by the court or jury; it does not require or provide for a court-ordered medical examination.
When would a party use CPLR 4516?
Whenever a case turns on determining a child's age and other proof, like a birth certificate, is unavailable or disputed.
Can a jury, not just a judge, use personal inspection to judge a child's age?
Yes. CPLR 4516 allows either the court or the jury to make that determination by inspection.
Is CPLR 4516 limited to any particular type of case?
No. It applies whenever it becomes necessary to determine a child's age in a civil proceeding.
Advisory Committee Notes
This rule is the same as former § 334 with minor language changes and with the omission of the final phrase which read “and such court may direct an examination by one or more physicians, whose opinion shall also be competent evidence upon the question of such age.” The advisory committee recognizes the virtue of a general power to appoint experts but did not propose such a rule in view of its basic decision not to provide an integrated code of evidence. Cf. Report of the Commission on the Administration of Justice in New York State 296–97 (1934); NY Law Rev Comm’n Rep 797–98 (1936); Uniform Rules of Evidence, Rules 59, 61; NY Co Sup Ct Rules, Special Rule for Medical Examinations in Personal Injury Actions; Cal Code Civ Proc § 1871; SD Code §§ 36.0109, 36.0118 (Supp 1952); RI Gen Laws c. 537, § 20 (1938); Model Expert Testimony Act §§ 1–10. The former provision was so narrow in scope as to be practically useless in civil cases, and it was defective since it made no provision for the payment of the doctor’s fees. See, e. g., International Fastener Co. v Francis Mfg. Co. 204 App Div 526, 198 NY Supp 455 (4th Dept), affd without opinion, 236 NY 673, 142 NE 330 (1923); cf. Arkansas State Game & Fish Comm. v Kizer, 222 Ark 673, 262 SW2d 265 (1953). But cf. Dinsel v Pennsylvania R.R. 144 F Supp 880 (WD Pa 1956); Fed R Civ P 53(a), 54(d); Annot, 39 ALR2d 1380 (1955). The phrase was not needed for criminal cases—where it was most likely to be used in statutory rape cases—since it was repeated in § 817 of the Penal Law.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, eff Sept 1, 1963.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: proof of age of child New Yorkpersonal inspection determine age CPLRhow to prove a child's age in court