You are here: / / Determination of Paternity Not in Child’s Best Interest; Mother Equitably E...

Determination of Paternity Not in Child’s Best Interest; Mother Equitably Estopped from Seeking Paternity Determination

The Second Department determined a genetic marker test to determine appellant’s paternity was not in the best interest of the child and the mother was equitably estopped form asserting appellant’s paternity.  The appellant had not been part of the 16-year-old child’s life since the child was 18 months old and the mother had failed to appear in a paternity proceeding instituted when the child was 8 months old:

…[I]in appropriate circumstances, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be asserted defensively by a purported biological father to prevent a child’s mother from asserting biological paternity where a genetic marker test would not be in the best interests of the child … . Here, the Family Court improvidently rejected the appellant’s equitable defense. An adverse inference may be taken against the mother for her failure to appear for the court-ordered genetic marker test in 1999, and her failure to pursue that proceeding … . Thereafter, the mother failed to commence a new proceeding for 13 years, during which time the subject child had no relationship with the appellant and lived with the mother, her current husband, and his half-siblings on the mother’s side. Accordingly, a genetic marker test is not in the best interests of the subject child, on the ground that the mother is equitably estopped from asserting the appellant’s biological paternity (see Family Ct Act § 532[a]…). Matter of Karen G v Thomas G, 2013 NY Slip Op 05901, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA ON GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES.
IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF BEER DISTRIBUTORS AND DEFENDANT BEER COMPANY, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT SECTION 55-C(4), WHICH PROHIBITS TERMINATION OF A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, APPLIES TO BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL CONTRACTS; THE COURT WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ORAL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF SECTION 55-C(4) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ ATTENDANCE AT A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (CPLR 3408) IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN “APPEARANCE” IN THE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO FIVE DAYS NOTICE (PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (G)) RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Eliminate Comparative Negligence Precluded Summary Judgment to Plaintiff In Car-Accident Action
A Prima Facie Case Under the Dram Shop Act Had Been Made Against Both Bars Which Served Plaintiff’s Decedent, Even Though the Alcohol Served at the First Bar Would Have Metabolized by the Time of the Accident Had Plaintiff’s Decedent Not Continued to Drink at the Second Bar
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE COMPLAINANT WAS A 14-YEAR-OLD RUNAWAY WHEN SHE STAYED AT HIS HOUSE; THE EVIDENCE OF KIDNAPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED AND CLEANED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained Husband’s Contribution to Purchase of Home by Wife’s Parents Constituted...