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
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Dismissal of a Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [Defense Based Upon Irrefutable Documentary Evidence] and CPLR 3211(a)(7) [Failure to State a Cause of Action] Explained
THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN FATHER SAID HE WISHED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY BUT COULD NOT AFFORD ONE; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE TOLD FATHER HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO APPOINTED COUNSEL BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING; FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CITY GAVE A PERMIT TO A BUS COMPANY TO USE A PARKING LOT, THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT RELINQUISHED ALL CONTROL OVER THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THE ENTIRE DEBT TIME-BARRED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED; IF SO, ONLY THOSE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS DUE WITHIN SIX YEARS OF THE START OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ARE RECOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANT’S SNOW REMOVAL MAY HAVE EXACERBATED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
BANK ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE SUBROGATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY DETERMINED MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WERE PROPERLY TERMINATED; MOTHER AND THE DISSENT ARGUED THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DISCOURAGED HER FROM COMMUNICATING WITH IT WELL BEFORE THE ABANDONMENT PERIOD (SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE TERMINATION PETITION) AND THE JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY PROHIBITED HER FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE FROM BEFORE THE ABANDONMENT PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...