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
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE RETURN DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS MISCALEDARED AS THE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF OPPOSITION PAPERS; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WHO HAD APPEARED IN THE ACTION BUT HAD SINCE MOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA COULD BE COMPELLED TO APPEAR AT TRIAL BY A SUBPOENA MAILED TO HIS NEW YORK ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT STOPPED BEFORE ENTERING PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE.
Criteria for Motion to Renew Based on New Facts Not Met
FAILURE TO SUBMIT PROOF OF MAILING THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (2) IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (FIRST DEPT).
THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT STEMMED FROM HIS STRIKING AND SERIOUSLY INJURING AN EIGHT-POUND DOG; THERE WAS NO NEED TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; INDICTMENT REINSTATED OVER A DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AND THE INVENTORY SEARCH WERE LAWFUL; SEIZED EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2024 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...