You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED COUNTY’S APPLICATION...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED COUNTY’S APPLICATION FOR PATERNITY DNA TESTING WITHOUT REQUIRING PUTATIVE FATHER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DEFENSE; COUNTY HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO BRING A PATERNITY ACTION WHEN THE MOTHER OR CHILD IS LIKELY TO BECOME A PUBLIC CHARGE.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have denied, without a hearing, the County’s request for DNA paternity testing. The putative father had not raised a question of fact to support his assertion of the equitable estoppel defense (demonstrating that another had developed a father-child relationship). Only after determining whether equitable estoppel defense applies can the propriety of DNA testing be considered. The County has the statutory authority to bring a paternity proceeding when the mother or child is likely to become a public charge:

… [A]rticle 5 of the Family Court Act still retains as an objective the protection of the public from bearing the cost of supporting . . . children where there exists a viable, legally obligated source of support” … . Accordingly, “section 522 of the Family Court Act provides that, among other persons, a public welfare official of the county, city or town where the mother resides, or the child is found, may originate such proceedings, if the mother or child is or is likely to become a public charge'” … . * * *

… [T]he doctrine of equitable estoppel may be used by a purported biological father to prevent an adverse party from asserting that he is the biological father where the child has developed a close relationship with another father figure such that it would be detrimental to the child’s interests to disrupt that relationship … . Under such circumstances, in order to be entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether equitable estoppel should be applied, a putative father must raise an issue of fact as to whether “a determination that he is in fact the father would disturb any relationship the child[ ] may have had with any other father figure” … . “[W]hether it is being used in the offensive posture to enforce rights or the defensive posture to prevent rights from being enforced, equitable estoppel is only to be used to protect the best interests of the child” … . …

The Family Court … erred to the extent that it based its order dismissing the petition on its prior determination, in effect, denying the County’s application for DNA testing. The Family Court should not have summarily denied the County’s application without first requiring the putative father to raise an issue of fact with respect to his defense of equitable estoppel … . Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v James D., 2017 NY Slip Op 01369, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

 

FAMILY LAW (PATERNITY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED COUNTY’S APPLICATION FOR PATERNITY DNA TESTING WITHOUT REQUIRING PUTATIVE FATHER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DEFENSE)/PATERNITY (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED COUNTY’S APPLICATION FOR PATERNITY DNA TESTING WITHOUT REQUIRING PUTATIVE FATHER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DEFENSE)/DNA TESTING (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED COUNTY’S APPLICATION FOR PATERNITY DNA TESTING WITHOUT REQUIRING PUTATIVE FATHER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DEFENSE)/FAMILY LAW (PATERNITY, COUNTY HAS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO BRING A PATERNITY ACTION WHEN THE MOTHER OR CHILD IS LIKELYT TO BECOME A PUBLIC CHARGE)/PATERNITY (COUNTY HAS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO BRING A PATERNITY ACTION WHEN THE MOTHER OR CHILD IS LIKELYT TO BECOME A PUBLIC CHARGE)/PUBLIC CHARGE (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, COUNTY HAS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO BRING A PATERNITY ACTION WHEN THE MOTHER OR CHILD IS LIKELYT TO BECOME A PUBLIC CHARGE)

You might also like
THE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULT AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONSECUTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HERSELF MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL, HER DAUGHTER, WHO WITNESSED THE FALL, PROVIDED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
HERE, EVEN THOUGH THE INITIAL ACTION WAS TIMELY ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION IN CPLR 205(A), THE SECOND ACTION, COMMENCED AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST FOR LACK OF STANDING, CAN BE DEEMED TIMELY UNDER A SECOND CPLR 205(A) SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION (SECOND DEPT).​ ​
THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO WAS AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THE OFFICE PROSECUTING THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
In the Absence of Allegations in the Pleadings Supporting an “Espinal” Exception to the Rule that Tort Liability to Third Persons Does Not Arise from a Contract, No Question of Fact Was Raised About a Duty Owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MET THE DEFINITION OF “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” SUCH THAT FAMILY COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED PENDENTE LITE MAINTENANCE DESPITE WAIVER OF... ABSENT PROOF OF 16-YEAR-OLD CHILD’S COLLEGE PLANS, ANY AWARD OF COLLEGE EXPENSES...