You are here: / / REQUEST FOR DNA PATERNITY TEST PROPERLY DENIED, NOT IN THE CHILD’S...

REQUEST FOR DNA PATERNITY TEST PROPERLY DENIED, NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST.

The First Department determined it was in the child’s best interest to deny respondent’s request for a DNA paternity test:

Family Court properly determined that it is in the child’s best interest to equitably estop respondent from having a DNA test to establish paternity (see Family Ct Act § 532[a]). Clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that respondent held himself out as the father of the child and that the now 10-year-old child considers respondent to be his father … . The child lived with respondent, his mother and siblings for about two years, calls respondent “dad” and spends time with him on birthdays and holidays, including Father’s Day. Respondent introduced the child to his family and friends as his son, and allowed the child to spend time and develop relationships with his family. Issues of credibility were for Family Court to resolve and its determination to credit the testimony of the mother and the child and to reject that of respondent is supported by the record … . Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Dwayne W., 2017 NY Slip Op 00595, 1st Dept 1-31-17

FAMILY LAW (REQUEST FOR DNA PATERNITY TEST PROPERLY DENIED, NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST)/PATERNITY (REQUEST FOR DNA PATERNITY TEST PROPERLY DENIED, NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST)/DNA (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, REQUEST FOR DNA PATERNITY TEST PROPERLY DENIED, NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST)/

You might also like
LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO APPEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE SEARCH OF A CAR AFTER DEFENDANT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO (COURT WILL NOT RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO WRONGDOERS).
JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WERE ADEQUATE, ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY WERE NOT PRESERVED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S OWN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY THAT HE CLEANED THE AREA WHERE HE STEPPED ON A NAIL PROVED DEFENDANT DID NOT NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE NAIL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED A PEN TO PUNCTURE THE CHEEK OF THE VICTIM CONSTITUTED EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT USED A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT IN THIS ASSAULT SECOND CASE, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ORDINARY-NONDEADLY-FORCE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
SUIT ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF AN ASSET OWNED NEARLY ENTIRELY BY BANKRUPT LEHMAN BROTHERS DISMISSED.

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

A MOVING CAR IS A PLACE WHERE THE VICTIM IS NOT LIKELY TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPTICAL CONFUSION OBSCURED A STEP, DEFENDANT’S...