You are here: / / DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST...

DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER OF FILIATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Third Department affirmed Family Court’s finding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply to petitioner’s application for an order of filiation. Equitable estoppel is triggered when the party seeking an order of filiation has acquiesced in the development of a parent-child relationship with another man. Here, although the child recognized some persons as “father figures” no parent-child relationship had developed with any single person:

 

“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is a defense in a paternity proceeding which, among other applications, precludes a man . . . from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man” … . The party asserting application of the doctrine — here, the attorney for the children — “has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case to support that claim” … . Assuming that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party — here, petitioner — to establish that it would be in the best interests of the children to order the genetic marker test … .

… [W]e agree with Family Court that application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel is not warranted here. Although the children’s therapist testified on direct (and respondent testified on rebuttal) that the girls do not recognize petitioner as their father, “[n]oticeably absent from the record is any indication that [another identified individual] played a significant role in raising, nuturing or caring for [respondent’s children]” … . To the contrary, both the therapist and respondent acknowledged that the children identified a number of individuals as “father figures” in their lives … . Hence, establishing petitioner’s paternity would not disrupt an existing parent-child relationship between the children and another individual … . Matter of Patrick A. v Rochelle B., 2016 NY Slip Op 00079, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

FAMILY LAW (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER OF FILIATION)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER OF FILIATION)/FILIATION, ORDER OF (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST)/PATERNITY (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER OF FILIATION)

You might also like
Commissioner of Labor Can Not Be Sued for Her Exercise of Discretionary Judgment Even Where Action Taken by Commissioner Resulted from a Mistaken Interpretation of Labor Law Statutes
Sexual Harassment Created Hostile Work Environment/Firing Was Impermissible Retaliation 
Because the Statute Relied Upon by the State Police to Deny a FOIL Request Did Not Pertain to the Sought Documents, the Request Should Have Been Granted/Court Cannot Substitute Another Ground for Denial
THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COUNTY COURT’S DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AND MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS OUTSIDE HIS RESIDENCE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND A PROTECTIVE SWEEP WAS CONDUCTED INSIDE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE; ITEMS OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE WERE LATER SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT; BECAUSE THE POLICE HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT OTHERS WERE PRESENT IN THE RESIDENCE, THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE OBSERVED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).
ONCE AN ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE EVALUATION WAS ORDERED THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE DRUG TREATMENT COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION HEARING, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT INITIALLY BELIEVED THE ROAD WHERE HE STEPPED IN A POTHOLE AND FELL WAS OWNED BY THE VILLAGE, BUT IN FACT IT WAS OWNED BY THE STATE; CLAIMANT’S LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD 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

FINAL ORDERS OF PROTECTION ISSUED ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION WITHOUT FOLLOWING... FORECLOSURE OF A REVERSE MORTGAGE CAN BE BASED UPON HOMEOWNER’S FAILURE...