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
THE COURT MAY ORDER A PARENT TO SUBMIT TO COUNSELING OR TREATMENT AS PART OF A CUSTODY OR PARENTAL ACCESS ORDER; BUT THE COURT MAY NOT IMPOSE SUCH CONDITIONS ON SEEKING PARENTAL ACCESS IN THE FUTURE (SECOND DEPT). ​
LACK OF SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT’S FALL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGING IN AGE-APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TAKING TURNS JUMPING OVER A KNEE-HIGH FENCE WHEN SHE FELL AND WAS INJURED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL BUS DRIVER ALLEGEDLY GESTURED TO PLAINTIFF TO MAKE A TURN AND PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WAS THEN STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE HE COMMITTED HIS SECOND OFFENSE BEFORE HE WAS SENTENCED FOR HIS FIRST OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD WAS 17 AND HAD A LONG STANDING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER’S HUSBAND, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GENETIC MARKER TESTING TO DETERMINE PATERNITY; THE CHILD WAS AWARE FROM A YOUNG AGE THAT THE PUTATIVE FATHER WAS THE CHILD’S BIOLOGICAL FATHER AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE PATERNITY PETITION WAS NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WAS SERVED ONE DAY LATE, AND PLAINTIFF WAS SO NOTIFIED BY THE CITY, THE CITY ALSO INDICATED IN SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS THAT IT WAS CONSIDERING THE CLAIM; THE CITY WAS THEREFORE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT).
Statutory Requirements for Recovery and Limits Imposed by Subrogation Explained; ”Law of the Case” Doctrine in Appellate Context Explained
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (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

Juvenile Entitled to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status—Family... Children’s Out-of-Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated