You are here: / / IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC...

IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a hearing on equitable estoppel in this paternity proceeding, determined that generic marker testing should not have been ordered without first resolving the equitable estoppel issue:

Family Court Act § 532 provides that, in a proceeding to establish paternity, “on the court’s own motion or the motion of any party, [the court] shall order the mother, her child and the alleged father to submit to one or more genetic marker or DNA tests” … . However, “no paternity test shall be ordered upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of, inter alia, equitable estoppel” … . “Where a party to a paternity proceeding raises an issue of equitable estoppel, that issue must be resolved before any biological testing is ordered” … .

Here, the Family Court should not have directed the petitioner and the child to submit to genetic marker testing before resolving the issue of equitable estoppel … . We remit the matter … for a hearing on the issue of equitable estoppel. If, and only if, the court determines that equitable estoppel should not be applied based upon the child’s best interests, then the court should direct genetic marker or DNA tests and reach a determination thereon … . Matter of George C.S. v Kerry-Ann B., 2018 NY Slip Op 06917, Second Dept 10-17-18

FAMILY LAW (IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT))/PATERNITY (IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT))/GENETIC MARKER TESTING (IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (FAMILY LAW, IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT))/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE CHILD WAS REMOVED FROM THEIR CARE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO REACH A RESOLUTION AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ROBBERY AND ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DISCOVERY WOULD LEAD TO EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL TO DEFEND AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​
LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Vicarious Liability of Hospital for Actions of Non-Employee Physician Explained (Not Met Here)
ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE HOME AND THEREFORE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ARREST WARRANT, THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION BECAUSE THE POLICE ENTERED THE HOME WITH CONSENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL ARGUED THE POLICE DID NOT GET A WARRANT TO DELAY THE ATTACHMENT OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND PROCURE STATEMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE HIRING PARTY IS GENERALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THERE IS A NONDELEGABLE-DUTY EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE; THE OWNER OF A BAR OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS; HERE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS REPAIRING THE BUILDING FACADE WHEN A CONCRETE BUCKET FELL ON THE PLAINTIFF (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

CUSTODY MODIFICATION PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING... ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE...