You are here: / / DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF...

DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined defendant mother was judicially estopped from arguing plaintiff was not a parent for the purpose of visitation. Defendant had previously successfully obtain an order requiring plaintiff to pay child support:

The defendant was judicially estopped from arguing that the plaintiff was not a parent for the purpose of visitation. First, by asserting in her child support petition that the plaintiff was chargeable with support for the subject child, the plaintiff assumed the position before the Family Court that the plaintiff was the subject child’s parent, as it is parents who are chargeable with the support of their children (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][a]). Next, based on her assertion that the plaintiff was chargeable with the subject child’s support, the defendant successfully obtained an order compelling the plaintiff to pay child support for the subject child … . Under this order, the plaintiff was required to pay child support for his children, including the subject child. Furthermore, the record does not support the court’s finding that the defendant unequivocally waived the right to child support. Therefore, the defendant is judicially estopped from arguing that the plaintiff is not a parent for the purpose of visitation … . Paese v Paese, 2016 NY Slip Op 07304, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

FAMILY LAW (DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)/VISITATION (DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)/CHILD SUPPORT (DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)/JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)

You might also like
ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT).
STANDING OUTSIDE A VEHICLE AND REACHING INSIDE IS NOT “OCCUPYING” THE VEHICLE SUCH THAT THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF THE CONTENTS OF A VEHICLE CAN BE CHARGED TO THE JURY (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE “CONSENT TO SEARCH” PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE NATURE OF DEFENDANT’S OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW YORK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE; THE PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO LEAD IN AN APARTMENT OWNED BY THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA), AN ENTITY SEPARATE FROM THE CITY; THEREFORE THE UNDERLYING CLAIM WAS PATENTLY MERITLESS (SECOND DEPT).
Losing Balance On Ladder Did Not Support Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action
MOTION TO DISMISS MADE BY DECEASED DEFENDANT’S FORMER ATTORNEY PURPORTEDLY ON DECEDENT’S BEHALF WAS A NULLITY, MOTIONS TO DISMISS MADE BY OTHER DEFENDANTS ARGUING THAT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN A PARTY BRINGS A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN THE COUNTY TO WHICH THE PARTY WANTS VENUE CHANGED, AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE ACTION WAS STARTED, THE PARTY MUST USE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CPLR 511 (A) AND (B), WHICH REQUIRES MAKING A DEMAND ON THE OTHER PARTY BEFORE BRINGING A MOTION; HERE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE WAS NOT USED, THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE IN THE “WRONG COUNTY” AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SOUGHT DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND COULD NOT COMPEL PARTITION IF THE PARTNERSHIP EXISTS, PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PARTITION IN THE ALTERNATIVE (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

DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED FOR A SUPPRESSION... WHEN PARENTS HAVE EQUAL PARENTING TIME, THE PARENT WITH THE HIGHER INCOME SHOULD...