You are here: / / Father Estopped from Moving to Vacate Order of Filiation Entered Upon Consent...

Father Estopped from Moving to Vacate Order of Filiation Entered Upon Consent Despite “Somewhat Limited” Parent-Child Relationship

The Second Department determined father was estopped from challenging an order of filiation even though there was evidence the parent-child relationship was “somewhat limited:”

Here, the order of filiation was entered approximately 10 years prior to the instant petition, and the father had been paying child support during that time. In addition, the father sought, and was granted, visitation with the subject child, which he exercised, although sporadically. The father attended some of the child’s school functions and parent-teacher conferences, had telephone contact with the child, and saw the child on some of her birthdays. The child, who was 15 years old at the time the father’s petition was filed, was acquainted with some of the father’s family members, considered the father to be her father, and had never known any other father. Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly invoked the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude the father’s challenge to the order of filiation …, and “the evidence indicating that the parent-child relationship was somewhat limited did not preclude the application of [that] doctrine” … . Matter of Shawn H v Kimberly F, 2014 NY Slip Op 01610, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Court Cannot Condition Future Visitation On Parent’s Participation in Counseling or Treatment
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT-WIFE’S ATTORNEY IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION MISSED A COUPLE OF THE 60-DAY BILLING PERIODS, THE ATTORNEY WAS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9) AND THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; $135,315.90 AWARDED (SECOND DEPT). ​
STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS; $2500 PENALTY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S JOB ENTAILED CLEANING UP GARBAGE, SLIPPING ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD WAS INHERENT IN HER WORK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TO BE ENTITLED TO A CHANGE OF VENUE AS OF RIGHT, THE DEMAND MUST BE SERVED WITH THE ANSWER OR BEFORE THE ANSWER IS SERVED; TO BE ENTITLED TO A DISCRETIONAY CHANGE OF VENUE, THE MOTION MUST BE MADE PROMPTLY AFTER LEARNING OF THE GROUND FOR THE CHANGE; HERE THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANSWER TO DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO REFLECT THE NEW THEORY (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Family Court Improperly Conditioned Future Visitation Upon Enrollment in a Drug... Village Ordinance Prohibiting Crematory Not Preempted by State Law Under Either...