You are here: / / Best Interests of Child Justified Denial of Petition to Vacate Acknowledgment...

Best Interests of Child Justified Denial of Petition to Vacate Acknowledgment of Paternity (Equitable Estoppel)

The Second Department determined Family Court properly denied the petition to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity.  Petitioner demonstrated his signing of the acknowledgment was based upon a mistake of fact. Although petitioner was not the child’s biological father, the best interests of the child, with whom petitioner had lived from birth for six years, mandated denial of the petition. The court explained the relevant law:

A party seeking to challenge an acknowledgment of paternity more than 60 days after its execution must prove that it was signed by reason of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact (see Family Ct Act § 516-a[b][ii]). If the petitioner meets this burden, the court is required to conduct a further inquiry to determine whether the petitioner should be estopped, in accordance with the child’s best interests, from challenging paternity … . * * *

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the petitioner should be equitably estopped from denying paternity. 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” … . “The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship” … . The paramount concern in such cases “has been and continues to be the best interests of the child” … .

Here, the hearing evidence demonstrated that the petitioner lived with the child from the time of her birth in March 2005, until 2011. After the parties separated in 2011, the petitioner continued to visit with the child approximately one to two times per week. According to the petitioner, the child is free to visit with him whenever she wants. Although the child knows that the petitioner is not her biological father, she does not refer to or think of anyone else as her father. The child has a strong relationship with the petitioner and wants to spend more time with him and his son, whom she regards as her brother. Accordingly, the evidence established that, up to the time of the hearing, there had been a recognized and operative parent-child relationship between the petitioner and the child in existence all of the child’s life … . Matter of Luis Hugo O. v Paola O., 2015 NY Slip Op 05195, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

You might also like
BANK’S PROOF OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE ON A THEORY RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OR DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS IN REPLY PAPERS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY FROM STEPPING INTO AN OPENING THAT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR A PERSON TO FALL THROUGH IS NOT COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
Circumstances Under Which NYC Residential Property-Owner May Be Liable for a Sidewalk Slip and Fall Based Upon Efforts to Remove Snow Explained (No Liability Here)—No Liability for Incomplete Snow Removal
PLAINTIFF DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN IDENTIFYING THE PARTY INITIALLY SUED AS “JOHN DOE TRUCKING COMPANY;” COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Verdict Finding Defendant’s Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Injury Set Aside as Against the Weight of the Evidence—Criteria Explained
A COMPUTER PRINTOUT FROM THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF STATE WEBSITE PURPORTING TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR VENUE PURPOSES WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A BUSINESS RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS 14 IN 1990 WHEN HE MURDERED A CLASSMATE AND THE CHILD SHE WAS BABYSITTING, THE PAROLE BOARD PROPERLY DENIED PAROLE FOR THE FIFTH TIME, THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THE BOARD CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND DID NOT BASE THEIR DECISION SOLELY ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE (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

Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Not Sufficiently Corroborated for Admission... Defendant-Homeowner’s Providing Plaintiff With a Ladder With Allegedly...