You are here: / / Petitioner Was Not Estopped from Denying Paternity—Family Court’s...

Petitioner Was Not Estopped from Denying Paternity—Family Court’s Ruling to the Contrary Reversed

The Second Department reversed Family Court and determined the petitioner was not estopped from denying his paternity of the child. No parental relationship had developed, the child did not know the petitioner and the mother had told the petitioner he was not the child’s father:

“The purpose of equitable estoppel is to prevent someone from enforcing rights that would work injustice on the person against whom enforcement is sought and who, while justifiably relying on the opposing party’s actions, has been misled into a detrimental change of position'” … . Thus, “a man who has held himself out to be the father of a child, so that a parent-child relationship developed between the two, may be estopped from denying paternity,” in light of the child’s justifiable reliance upon such representations, and the resulting harm that the man’s denial of paternity would engender … . “The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship'” … . The doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied only where its use furthers the best interests of the subject child (see Family Ct Act § 418[a]…).

Here, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in concluding that the petitioner was estopped from denying his paternity of the child (see Family Ct Act § 418[a]). The hearing evidence demonstrated that the petitioner did not have a parent-child relationship since the child was approximately three years old at the time when the petitioner learned from the mother that he was not the child’s father and the parties separated. The mother testified that the child did not know the petitioner as his father and that the two had not seen each other in years. There was no evidence that the child would suffer irreparable loss of status, destruction of her family image, or other harm to her physical or emotional well-being if this proceeding were permitted to go forward … . Matter of Felix M v Leonardo RC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04491, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

You might also like
No Special Duty Owed by School District to Adult Employees
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS; THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM CONVICTION WAS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Provide Pre-Restraint Notice to a Judgment Debtor as Required by the Exempt Income Protection Act Violates Due Process
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE PROPERLY DENIED; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE CLAIM FOR LOSS OF SERVICES BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRIPPING HAZARD WAS INHERENT IN PLAINTIFF’S JOB; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSD (SECOND DEPT).
TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
AVILA WAS INJURED WHEN HER SPOUSE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR AND STRUCK A PARKED CAR; THE POLICY EXPRESSLY STATED COVERAGE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE INSURED’S SPOUSE; IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION THE INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO COVER THE INSURED’S SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).
CRITIERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Under NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Owners Have Duty to Maintain Sidewalk... Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment In Action Against Golf Course Re: Incursion...