You are here: / / PARTIES’ CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING...
,

PARTIES’ CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the parties' consent to a DNA test did not eliminate the need for a hearing on the vacation of the the acknowledgment of paternity on the basis of fraud:

On November 22, 1998, an acknowledgment of paternity was executed with respect to the subject child, which contained the signatures of the mother and the father. Seventeen years later, the father filed the instant petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity on the ground of fraud, alleging, inter alia, “I do not believe that I have ever executed an acknowledgment” of paternity. Although the parties consented to a DNA test, the Family Court proceeded to conduct a hearing on the issue of whether the acknowledgment of paternity should be vacated on the ground of fraud. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that the father failed to establish that the acknowledgment of paternity was fraudulently executed, and thus denied the father's petition. The father appeals.

Contrary to the father's contention, the parties' consent to a DNA test did not obviate the need for a hearing on the issue of whether the acknowledgment of paternity should be vacated on the ground of fraud. Where, as here, a party seeks to challenge an acknowledgment of paternity more than 60 days after its execution, “Family Court Act § 516-a(b) requires the court to conduct a hearing to determine the issues of fraud, duress, or a material mistake of fact [in the execution of the acknowledgment of paternity] before ordering a [genetic marker test]” … . Matter of Andrew E. v Angela N.S., 2018 NY Slip Op 06530, Second Dept 10-3-18

FAMILY LAW (PARTIES' CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, PARTIES' CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/PATERNITY (FRAUD, PARTIES' CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (PATERNITY, PARTIES' CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RULE OUT LIABILITY BASED UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND THE COMPANY PROVIDING SECURITY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT (SECOND DEPT).
Requirements for an Easement In Favor of Public Use Not Met
THE PARENT’S INABILITY TO CONTROL THE CHILD’S BROTHER PRECLUDED THE RETURN OF THE CHILD TO THE PARENT’S CUSTODY AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ADD DEFENDANT DESIGN, WHICH HAD A UNITY OF INTEREST WITH DEFENDANT EISENBACH, DESIGN’S CEO; THE PLAINTIFF HAD AGREED TO DISCONTINUE THE TIMELY ACTION AGAINST EISENBACH BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE ON EISENBACH’S BEHALF (SECOND DEPT).
HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED BY AN OPEN COURT STIPULATION (CONTRACT) WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION, MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBSEQUENT APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY A RECEIVER WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT WHERE A DEFENDANT IS UNAWARE OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA AND THEREFORE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RELIED ON HEARSAY AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED INDICTMENT ON GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT, EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT THE AGENCY DEFENSE.

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

LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT... NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S BRUISES...