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
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
SERVICE OF CLAIM BY REGULAR MAIL VIOLATED COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE CAUSES OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THE TRIER OF FACT WOULD HAVE TO RESORT TO SPECULATION ABOUT WHETHER THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, THE ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
STUDENT INJURED HORSING AROUND IN GYM CLASS, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
The Continuing Treatment Was Not Shown to Relate to the Condition Which Caused the Alleged Injury
DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Once the Insurer Shows an Exclusion to Coverage Applies, the Burden is on the Insured to Demonstrate an Exception to the Exclusion Applies

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...