You are here: / / THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A FATHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP...
,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A FATHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER’S HUSBAND OR PETITIONER’S ACQUIESCENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A RELATIONSHIP; THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S PETITION FOR A DECLARATION OF PATERNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel should not have been invoked to dismiss the petition for a declaration petitioner is the father of a child born in 2016. Mother did not deny petitioner was the father but claimed the child had developed a father-child relationship with her husband, Joseph T. The Second Department held that the evidence did not demonstrate a father-child relationship with Joseph T and did not demonstrate petitioner acquiesced in the creation of a father-child relationship with Joseph T:

The doctrine of equitable estoppel may “preclude a man who claims to be a child’s biological father from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man” … . ” The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship'” … , and has been applied “[i]n situations where an individual has assumed the role of a father and where the petitioner putative father has neglected to assume such a role” … . …

We agree with the petitioner that the respondents failed to demonstrate the existence of an operative parent-child relationship between the child and Joseph T. The only evidence of such a relationship came from the child’s foster mother, with whom he has lived since he was one year old. The foster mother testified that the child called Joseph T. “daddy” during weekly supervised visits, and that they were affectionate with each other at the visits … . … Joseph T. never appeared in court on the petition and did not testify at the hearing. Further, we disagree with the Family Court that the petitioner acquiesced in the establishment of a relationship between the child and Joseph T. The petitioner testified at the hearing that, until the child was removed from the mother’s care, he did not know she married to Joseph T. Matter of Luis V. v Laisha P. T., 2020 NY Slip Op 03235, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR AND DID NOT SUBMIT AN ADEQUATE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ACTION IS DEEMED ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
THE TURNOVER PETITION SEEKING REAL PROPERTY AND FUNDS TRANSFERRED TO DEFRAUD JUDGMENT CREDITORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICY CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
The Kinds of Damages Recoverable in a Property-Damage Action Stemming from Allegedly Defective Doors and Windows Explained in Some Depth—Economic Loss Rule Re: Strict Products Liability and Negligence—Consequential and Special Damages Re: Contract—When an Issue Can Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal Explained
FAMILY COURT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE FAMILY COURT ACT AND PENAL LAW REQUIREMENTS IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, PETITION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BUS DRIVER RESPONDED REASONABLY UPON HEARING THE SIREN OF A FIRE TRUCK APPROACHING AN INTERSECTION; PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER, WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS DRIVER SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS NOT SUPPORTED... ALTHOUGH THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ALLOWED THE SELLER TO CANCEL THE...