You are here: / / BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY.

BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY.

The Second Department determined the acknowledged biological father’s paternity petition was properly dismissed in the best interests of the child:

​

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 532(a), “[t]he court shall advise the parties of their right to one or more genetic marker tests or DNA tests and, on the court’s own motion or the motion of any party, shall order the mother, her child and the alleged father to submit to one or more genetic marker or DNA tests . . . to aid in the determination of whether the alleged father is or is not the father of the child. No such test shall be ordered, however, upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of res judicata, equitable estoppel, or the presumption of legitimacy of a child born to a married woman” (emphasis added). ” The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is the best interests of the subject child'” … . ” In situations where an individual has assumed the role of a father and where the petitioner putative father has neglected to assume such a role, the petitioning putative father has been estopped from asserting a claim of paternity'” … . “The issue of equitable estoppel does not involve the equities between [or among] the . . . adults; the case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child”… .

Here, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to deny the petition. Among other things, the petitioner provided limited financial support for the child and had seen the child only approximately 20 times over the course of the child’s life. Additionally, the respondent’s husband, whose name appears on the birth certificate, had assumed the role of the child’s father, providing for the child financially and emotionally and living with the respondent and their other children as a family unit consistently for the entirety of the child’s life. As such, although the parties agreed that the petitioner was the child’s biological father, the court properly estopped the petitioner from asserting any paternity claim in the child’s best interests … . Matter of Carlos O. v Maria G., 2017 NY Slip Op 02993, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

 

FAMILY LAW (BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY)/PATERNITY (BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY)/ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY)

You might also like
Village Not Liable for Failure to Place a Crossing Guard at a Particular Intersection—Placement of Crossing Guards Is a “Discretionary,” Not “Ministerial,” Government Action—No Liability Absent Special Relationship to Plaintiff
Owners/Occupiers of a Single Family Residence Not Responsible for Maintaining Abutting Sidewalk Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code
DEFENDANT’S CONTRACT WITH THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN STREET LIGHTS DID NOT CREATE A DUTY OWED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE PLAINTIFF, A PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY A CAR WHO ALLEGED A STREET LIGHT WAS NOT WORKING; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM;” IT MERELY FAILED “TO ACT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOOD” WHICH DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO A NONPARTY (SECOND DEPT).
EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PHYSICAL INJURY IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED MURDER; REQUEST FOR MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON THE COMPLAINANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY PROPERLY DENIED; PERSISTENT FELONY SENTENCING PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF STATED THE WRONG ACCIDENT-DATE IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; BECAUSE THE WRONG DATE WAS NOT USED IN BAD FAITH AND THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED, PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER’S INCAPACITATING INJURIES EXCUSED THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, IT SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY (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

PHOTOGRAPHER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE, NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY... PARTY FACING POSSIBLE INCARCERATION IN SUPPORT PROCEEDINGS IS ENTITLED TO EFFECTIVE...