You are here: / / PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS...

PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the paternity petition should have been dismissed on equitable estoppel grounds. Petitioner provided semen for the artificial insemination of mother, who is married to her same sex partner. The artificial insemination was not done by a doctor in accordance with Domestic Relations Law 73, so the statutory presumption of legitimacy did not apply. The parties agreed in a “Three-Party Donor Contract” that the petitioner would not have parental rights or responsibilities:

… [I]t is undisputed that all of the parties intended that the petitioner would not be a parent to the child, even if they did contemplate some amount of contact after birth. The petitioner was not present at the child’s birth, and was not named on her birth certificate. Despite the fact that he was undeniably aware of the child’s birth and his possible claim to paternity, the petitioner waited more than three years to assert his claim of parentage. During that time, the child has lived with and been cared for exclusively by the respondents, each of whom has developed a loving parental relationship with her. Although the petitioner asserts that he has had some contact with the child, he does not claim that he has developed a parental relationship with the child or that she recognizes him as a father. Significantly, the petitioner acknowledges that he does not actually seek a parental role, only that he wants a legal right to visitation with the child. Under these circumstances, we find that a hearing was unnecessary, and it is in the child’s best interests to dismiss the paternity petition on the ground of equitable estoppel …  Under the particular circumstances presented here, it would be unjust and inequitable to disrupt the child’s close parental relationship with each of the respondents and permit the petitioner take a parental role when he has knowingly acquiesced in the development of a close relationship between the child and another parent figure … . Matter of Joseph O. v Danielle B., 2018 NY Slip Op 01192, Second Dept 2-21-18

FAMILY LAW (PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT))/ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT))/PATERNITY (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION, (PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Unexcused Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders Warranted Striking of the Pleadings
Contract to Share Commissions with Person Not Licensed to Sell Insurance is Illegal and Unenforceable
DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
AWARDING FATHER SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY DID NOT HAVE A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE RECORD, MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW 2ND DEPT.
(Harmless) Error for Prosecutor to Ask If Other Witnesses’ Testimony Was Untrue and to Ask About Defendant’s Silence Upon Apprehension
HERE THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MOUND OF SNOW AND ICE WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL, WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION BY PLOWING, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
INSURED’S EXCUSES FOR DELAY IN NOTIFYING INSURANCE BROKERS OF PENDING ACTION NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT BROKERS PROPERLY GRANTED.

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

NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN FATHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL... ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY...